Misgendering the Spirit

Language learners should master the concept of grammatical gender. This is especially true for native English speakers. I’ve found many Christians, even some in scholarly circles, who are confused on this issue. As a consequence, the Holy Spirit is sometimes ‘misgendered’.

The problem is birthed from confusion between (and conflation of) grammatical gender and biological sex, as in male and female. From this confusion, faulty ideas arise as to what constitutes personhood.

To state simply: grammatical gender does not necessarily indicate biological sex. Most times there is no correlation whatsoever.

Grammatical Gender en Español

Since Greek has three grammatical genders, it may be helpful to first illustrate from a language with only two. Below are some examples in Spanish, the world’s fourth-most spoken language (after English, Mandarin Chinese, and Hindi).

the cat = el gato
the dog = el perro
the table = la mesa
the bank = el banco
the store = la tienda

Notice how “the” is spelled two different ways in Spanish. The words for “cat”, “dog”, and “bank” have el before them. These words (gato, perro, banco) are masculine in grammatical gender, so the corresponding word for “the” is also masculine (el). Comparatively, the Spanish words for “table” and “store” have la preceding them. These words (mesa, tienda) are feminine in grammatical gender and therefore have la to match.

This use of el in front of grammatically masculine nouns and la in front of grammatically feminine nouns must be maintained. You should never see ‘la gato’ or ‘el mesa’—these are grammatical mismatches, errors.

Now, we would hardly think any table or store is female. Nor would we think any bank is male. And, of course, we would hardly think all cats and all dogs are male.

In Spanish, there is a simple way for designating female cats and female dogs. An extra word is added to el perro and el gato to specify a male:

the female dog = la perra
the female cat = la gata
the male dog = el perro macho
the male cat = el gato macho

The astute student can readily see that the last letter of both perro and gato is changed from “o” to “a” to make it feminine in grammatical gender. This way, the grammatical gender also indicates the female sex of the dog and the cat. But since perro and gato mean “dog” or “cat” generically (without regard to biological sex), adding macho to the end indicates that the dog or the cat is male. In these examples grammatical gender correlates to biological sex.

Below are the final Spanish examples for our purposes:

the Father = el Padre
the Son = el Hijo
the mother = la madre
the spirit = el espíritu
the Holy Spirit = el Espíritu Santo

The only feminine grammatical gender above is found, appropriately, in “mother”. Similarly, both “Father” and “Son” are masculine. However, when referring to God biological sex is not to be understood, of course.

The word for “spirit” is masculine in grammatical gender. But this doesn’t mean that a spirit has biological sex. To specify “the Holy Spirit”, the word Santo follows el Espíritu. And since the Holy Spirit is part of the Triune God, once again, we don’t construe biological sex.

The Three Genders in the Greek

As noted earlier, Greek has three grammatical genders, adding neuter:

the sun = ho hēlios (masculine)
the earth/land = hē gē (feminine)
the water = to hudōr (neuter)

Like Spanish, the Greek word for “the” must match the grammatical gender of its associated noun. In the examples above, “sun” (hēlios) is masculine, “earth/land” (gē) is feminine, and “water” (hudōr) is neuter. So, correspondingly, the words for “the” are masculine (ho), feminine (hē), and neuter (to), respectively. Of course, none of the words in these examples indicate biological sex.

the world/universe = ho kosmos (masculine)
the land/region = hē chōra (feminine)
the lake = hē limnē (feminine)
the open/deep sea = to pelagos (neuter)
the deep sea = ho bythos (masculine)

In viewing the above, the reader may perceive a seeming randomness to the assignment of grammatical gender. The last three all relate to water, yet each one has a different grammatical gender! In fact, the last two are synonymous.

Once again, none of these can be construed as implying biological sex. And none of these are persons in any sense, of course.

the word/speech = ho logos (masculine)
the word/saying = to rhēma (neuter)

Despite what some Word of Faith (Word/Faith) teachers claim, these two words are essentially synonymous when referring to speech.1 And when referring to speech generally, we do not assume biological sex or personhood, of course.

In the case of ho logos the difference comes in the preexistent Jesus Christ, “the Word” (John 1:1—14). Certainly, we recognize the personalization—the ‘Personhood’2—of “the Word” here. However—and this is an important distinction—the masculine grammatical gender of ho logos does not indicate personhood in and of itself. Nor does it indicate biological sex—God is not intrinsically a sexual Being. It is the flesh (human) aspect of Word-become-flesh (Jesus the Christ) that indicates biological sex. Jesus is a biological male in virtue of His human nature, not His Divine nature. In His pre-earthly existence as “the Word” He was not even a biological being.

the Father = ho Patēr
the Son = ho Huios
the mother = hē mētēr
the spirit = to pneuma
the Holy Spirit = to Pneuma (to) Hagios

Not surprisingly, the first three above parallel the Spanish in terms of grammatical gender. The only feminine occurs, appropriately, in “mother”. Similarly, both “Father” and “Son” are masculine. And again, as in Spanish—or any translation of Scripture—when referring to God biological sex is not to be understood.

But when compared to the Spanish word for “S/spirit” grammatical gender differs. In Greek the word (pneuma) is neuter. Consequently, confusion results among many. To some apparently, the neuter grammatical gender necessarily construes a non-being, a thing. And from there it would follow that non-beings are non-persons. But this conflates distorted notions of grammatical gender with biological sex/gender in the English and imposes them upon the Greek.

Christendom, We Have a Problem

Confusion manifests in two ways, with one mistaken notion following the other. Because the word for “Spirit”, pneuma, is neuter in grammatical gender, some interpreters wrongly assume:

(a) this must mean that the Holy Spirit is not a ‘person’, since the Spirit is neither masculine (misconstrued as “male”?) in grammatical gender nor feminine (misconstrued as “female”?);

(b) however, because one section of Scripture (John 14:15—16:15) uses the grammatically masculine paraklētos (“counselor”, “advocate”, “comforter”) to refer to the Spirit, then this makes the Holy Spirit a person.

Now, to be clear, I absolutely affirm that Scripture declares the ‘Personhood’ of the Holy Spirit. But this is not due to the masculine grammatical gender of paraklētos. More on this further below.

Generally, the Got Questions site explains Christian concepts adequately (if a bit simplistically at times). But their page for the ‘Personhood’ of the Holy Spirit, Is the Holy Spirit a person?, contains the errors identified in this blog post. To unravel, I will analyze one sentence at a time. First the text, from the second paragraph at the preceding hyperlink:

The Bible provides many ways to help us understand that the Holy Spirit is truly a person—that is, He is a personal being, rather than an impersonal thing. First, every pronoun used in reference to the Spirit is “he” not “it.” The original Greek language of the New Testament is explicit in confirming the person of the Holy Spirit. The word for “Spirit” (pneuma) is neuter and would naturally take neuter pronouns to have grammatical agreement. Yet, in many cases, masculine pronouns are found (e.g., John 15:26; 16:13-14). Grammatically, there is no other way to understand the pronouns of the New Testament related to the Holy Spirit—He is referred to as a “He,” as a person.

Error begets error. Beginning with the first sentence:

The Bible provides many ways to help us understand that the Holy Spirit is truly a person—that is, He is a personal being, rather than an impersonal thing.

This is true.

First, every pronoun used in reference to the Spirit is “he” not “it.”

Though this may be true in English translations, this is absolutely untrue in the Greek New Testament. This will be clarified as we go.

The original Greek language of the New Testament is explicit in confirming the person of the Holy Spirit.

In the original Greek language the word for “S/spirit”, pneuma, is neuter, as stated earlier. But this has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the Holy Spirit is an impersonal thing any more than the masculine kosmos (“world”) indicates that the world is a personal being. It’s not the Greek language that establishes personhood; it’s the contexts describing the Holy Spirit that establish it.

The word for “Spirit” (pneuma) is neuter and would naturally take neuter pronouns to have grammatical agreement.

This is absolutely true. And it absolutely does in the Greek.

Yet, in many cases, masculine pronouns are found (e.g., John 15:26; 16:13-14).

Three masculine (demonstrative) pronouns are used in these cases (and one more each in 14:26 and 16:83) because they refer to the noun paraklētos, which is a masculine noun! Moreover, this is hardly “many cases”, as these are only found in the Farewell Discourse (John 14:16—16:15) when the pronoun refers to paraklētos. The Farewell Discourse is also interspersed with neuter pronouns in the Greek when referring to pneuma. For example, in John 14:17, the neuter relative pronoun hò is used once and the neuter ‘personal’ pronoun auto is used twice as substitutes for to pneuma at the very beginning of the verse—though all three are translated as the masculine “him” in English. This is to indicate personhood in English. To reiterate, these three neuter pronouns are translated as masculine pronouns in English solely to signify personhood for English readers. This is an issue in translation, not in Greek.

Grammatically, there is no other way to understand the pronouns of the New Testament related to the Holy Spirit—He is referred to as a “He,” as a person.

I cannot know if the author is being dishonest or is obtusely conflating issues. As noted just above, the English translations generally use “he” when a pronoun is substituted for the Holy Spirit. But the Greek pronouns here agree in grammatical gender with their antecedents, their referents. And in the Greek New Testament any pronoun which refers to pneuma is also neuter to match in grammatical gender.

So how do we Biblically establish the ‘Personhood’ of the Holy Spirit? Murray J. Harris in his exegetical commentary on John’s Gospel provides some helpful introductory apologetics here (the author translates paraklētos “Helper”):

The fact that the pronouns referring to the Spirit…are neuter no more establishes the impersonality of the Spirit than the masculine pronouns ekeinos in 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13-14 and auton in 16:7 [ED: referring to paraklētos] prove the personality of the Spirit. In each case the gender of the pronouns is grammatically conditioned…The personality of the Spirit should be established without appeal to the masculine pronouns in the passages cited above. (One can argue, for example, that since Jesus as Helper [implied by allos, “another” in 14:16] is personal, one would assume that the Spirit as “another Helper” is also personal. And the other personal roles attributed to the Spirit, such as teaching and reminding [14:26], testifying [15:26], guiding [16:13], and informing [16:14-15], would certainly be strange if the Spirit were simply an impersonal force).4

In short, it’s not the Greek grammar that argues for the ‘Personhood’ of the Holy Spirit. It’s the contexts describing Him. A few other contexts in this regard:

  • The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30).
  • The Holy Spirit can be lied to (Acts 5:3), which is tantamount to lying to God (Acts 5:4).
  • The Holy Spirit is sent jointly by the Father (John 14:26) and the Son (John 15:26; 16:7) and is received by believers (1Cor 6:19, etc.), in whom the Spirit performs some of these personal functions.
  • The Spirit’s Deity finds affirmation in the sharing of the one Divine Name with the Father and the Son (Matthew 28:19). If the Father and Son are ‘Persons’, then it most likely follows that the Holy Spirit is, as well. Though equality of ‘Personhood’ cannot definitively be established by this one verse, it’s this verse in concert with other verses that help make the case. As another example of such, Jesus is called paraklētos (1John 2:1), while Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as ‘another paraklētos’ (John 14:16).

No Good Apologies for Bad Apologetics

Using bad apologetics can harm the Christian cause. Anyone who is against Trinitarianism specifically or Christianity generally can use that bad pronoun argument against the Christian faith. Such bad arguments can make us seem like the ignorant and unintelligent (or intellectually dishonest) people that many non-believers accuse Christians of being.

Such faulty arguments used in attempts to bolster a theological position undermine proper Christian apologetics. Let’s endeavor to do better. I know we can!


1 But logos has a more expansive range of meanings. For those unaware, many Word/Faith teachers assert (among other things) the false dichotomy that rhēma denotes the ‘higher’ word from God for believers only while logos indicates the written Scriptures as a whole for everyone, including non-believers. Not only is this reductionistic, it fails to account for the fact that the verbal form (legō) of logos is used quite often preceding speech (so-and-so said [legō], “…”). A good example to refute this dichotomy presents itself in Matthew 12:36: But I say (legō) to you that every idle word (rhēma) that men speak (legō) they will give account/reckoning (logos) for in the day of judgment. Moreover, rhēma is found in only 65 verses in the New Testament as compared to over 300 for logos, while the verbal form legō occurs over 2000 times.

2 I always place single quotes around ‘Person’ when referring to individual hypostases of the Father, Son, or Spirit in order to indicate a distinction between modern ideas of personhood and those of Trinitarianism. The Father, Son, and Spirit should not be reduced to such secular notions.

3 These five occurrences of the masculine demonstrative pronoun (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13, 14), plus one masculine personal pronoun, are the only stand-alone pronouns in this entire section referring to paraklētos. There are some others implied in verbs (all finite verbs encode person and number, but not gender), though some are ambiguous as to their intended referent (see previous article Another Paraclete?, especially endnote 10). There are also neuter pronouns—specific and implied—referencing either the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of truth in the Farewell Discourse.

4 John, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2015), p 261 (Greek transliterated). And see note 3 above and my previous article related to this subject.

23 Responses to Misgendering the Spirit

  1. Hi, Craig! Great work with this post! Love how you incorporated Spanish to help explain the Greek! I have heard the Holy Spirit misgendered in some astounding ways. Thank you for refuting these lies!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Craig says:

    Thanks so much for taking the time to read this! There are even more subtle ways the Holy Spirit is ‘misgendered’, I’ve found. I hope to illustrate one example in a future post.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I look forward to it!!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Jim says:

    Thanks for taking the time to spell out (literally) how languages use gender in pronouns. From my school level French I was aware of the practice and I appreciate your patience here. So I, you, we agree that the Greek gender of nouns various do not, at any time confer personhood simply by their masculine or feminine pronoun. Any personhood, in the case of Pneuma has to come from the inference of other texts. I capitalised Pneuma although that was a translation habit that was only introduced in medieval bibles. Spirit capital S.

    I have a couple of points, but first up, I’m not clear why you titled this post ‘misgendering the spirit’. Is it because we have attributed a male persona to a neuter noun rather than give all translated pronouns of pneuma the Greek neuter? I wasn’t sure from the content.


  5. Jim says:

    If personhood only comes from texts such as Eph 4:30 and Acts 5:4, then what are we to make of Holy Spirit references in the OT that clearly indicate the activity of the pre-incarnate Jesus? Take Isaiah 63:9-12 for example. In Hebrew parallelism we see one descriptor mirror another for the same subject, such as David saying ‘where can I go from your spirit, where can I flee from your presence?’ (Ps 139:7)

    Is 63 is an OT original of Eph 4:30 in grieving the Holy Spirit. The assumption of course is that only a being or person can be grieved, therefore the Holy Spirit is a person. But closer inspection reveals that to be in error. In verse 7 it reads that ‘the LORD’ provides kindnesses, and has done ‘good things’. He is Israel’s saviour in v8; he was distressed in their distress, he provided love, mercy, redemption. In 10b ‘he turned and became their enemy’ after Israel’s rebellion. Who? The LORD or the Holy Spirit? Just as in Acts 5, the term is parallelism for the LORD. Is 63:12c says that the Holy Spirit was YHWH’s ‘glorious arm of power’, a symbolic term for his presence amongst the Israelites.

    Going back to Ex 13:21 which Isaiah was referencing in his passage, we read that the cloud and pillar of fire were ‘the LORD’. The manifestation of the pre-incarnate Jesus was the cloud and fire, the same LORD that led them through the desert, provided protection, food and water (1 Cor 10:4 the rock that provided water was Christ). The same LORD who was grieved when they rebelled is called the Holy Spirit in Is 63 and similarly in Acts 5. In both cases we are talking about the pre-incarnate and post-incarnate Jesus. The Angel of the LORD in OT interactions and the Lord in NT, called the Holy Spirit on occasions by virtue of being the tangible presence or power of the Father but rooted in a person – the son of God.

    The Paraclete is a person, the risen Christ and him alone. The Holy Spirit is the manifestation of the risen Christ, invisible yet made visible by our obedience to the commands of Jesus.


  6. Jim says:

    Matt 28:19 does not confer deity any more that 1 Tim 5:21 confers deity on the ‘elect angels’. Added to that is its non-inclusion in certain manuscripts. From my study it’s not as controversial as the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5 but could be in that category.


  7. Craig says:

    Updated 10:44 AM: It’s the apparent conflation of neuter grammatical gender–understood by some as indicating a non-being, a thing–with ‘human gender’ which leads to understanding a ‘he’ (as opposed to ‘it’) pronoun as indicating a being, a non-thing in virtue of masculine gender, which seems to be deduced from biological sex, i.e. male (over against neuter). And the Got Questions article illustrates this by assuming the masculine pronouns referencing paraclete indicate personhood in and of themselves. In other words, according to this thinking, all the neuter pronouns do not indicate personhood, so the fact the Holy Spirit is referenced as masculine via pronouns (for paraclete) must indicate personhood.

    The real problem in the latter is that it’s sometimes difficult in the Greek to determine the antecedent (referent) for a given pronoun; and, therefore some have thought the masculine pronoun refers back to pneuma rather than paraclete. But that would be a grammatical mismatch. They recognize this mismatch, but assume it’s done purposely in order the indicate personhood. It’s very convoluted. And I admit I initially got caught up in this fallacious argument. It’s an issue of imposing English grammar and thought upon the Greek.

    Further compounding this issue is the fact that there ARE sometimes purposeful grammatical mismatches in Scripture (I point one out in the “What Did Pilate State…?” article), but this particular issue in the Farewell Discourse is pretty clear cut once the fog is lifted.


  8. Craig says:

    I should add to the last comment that, from the other side, since pneuma is neuter some claim that “it” cannot be a person. I’m pretty sure this is what motivated some to make the faulty pronoun argument that Got Questions illustrates.

    You wrote, If personhood only comes from texts such as Eph 4:30 and Acts 5:4, then what are we to make of Holy Spirit references in the OT that clearly indicate the activity of the pre-incarnate Jesus?

    There are more texts than these; but, my focus was on dispelling the pronoun argument rather than arguing for the ‘Personhood’ of the Holy Spirit. There are other OT references that speak about ‘God’s Spirit’, as well, which may (or may not) be the Holy Spirit. However…

    …you wrote: The Paraclete is a person, the risen Christ and him alone. The Holy Spirit is the manifestation of the risen Christ, invisible yet made visible by our obedience to the commands of Jesus. On the surface, this could almost work, except, e.g., for the accounts of Jesus’ baptism by John, in which the Spirit came down ‘like a dove’.


  9. Craig says:

    The context of 1 Tim 5:21 is completely different than Matt 28:19. In the latter, it’s the fact that all those listed–the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit–share in the one Divine Name (Authority) that’s significant. Since the Father and the Son are understood to be ‘Persons’, then it follows that the Holy Spirit is, too.

    Since I commented on another blog about this issue, for convenience’ sake, I’ll just copy it (with revisions/clarifications) here:

    All Greek manuscripts contain the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. There are no textual variants in this portion of the verse.

    I’d seen Kaszyński’s article before. To take just one example, he cites Eusebius as one who uses “in His name” (implying Jesus’ only) instead of the Trinitarian formula; however, Eusebius cites it BOTH ways, with and without the longer verbiage. Thus, to not mention this fact about Eusebius is a bit deceptive. Even unitarian Anthony Buzzard admits this:

    Matthew 28.19 long vs short Eusebius, “in the name of” only.

    Buzzard also mentions the Didachē (@ 0:28), written ca. 50-120 AD, which uses the longer version twice in chapter 7. See here: Didache. But Buzzard goes awry at about the 2 minute mark when he starts claiming the Holy Spirit is an impersonal ‘power’. This denies the equal weight given, via the Greek grammar, in the Divine Name. These ‘Persons’ are all in parallel.

    The bottom line: though some early church writers appear to write it “in His name” instead of the longer text, this in no way negates the Greek NT text, which evidences no variants in the relevant section. It was not uncommon for writers to ‘quote’ by memory, as opposed to having a manuscript in hand. Moreover, it’s possible some writers conflated Matthew 28:19 with some of the Acts verses which speak of baptizing in Jesus’ name.

    The Matt 28:19 text is nowhere near as ‘uncertain’ as the Johannine comma.


  10. Craig says:


    I want to return to this: The Paraclete is a person, the risen Christ and him alone. The Holy Spirit is the manifestation of the risen Christ, invisible yet made visible by our obedience to the commands of Jesus.

    If the Holy Spirit = the Risen Christ = the manifestation of the risen Christ, then how is it that lying to Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3) is tantamount to lying to God (Acts 5:4) rather than the risen Christ?


  11. Jim says:

    Because ‘God’ one of the divine terms that can and is credited to Jesus (cf all the theophanies or christophanies in the OT). Jesus has been given authority to carry the Father’s name, hence can be called God. That, though is a relational context rather than making an ontological statement, since the Father and Jesus are clearly two separate beings.


  12. Craig says:

    Watch out for bi-theism!


  13. Jim says:

    Always! Or tri- 🙂

    There are many gods and many lords, but really only one of each that we are given to worship and follow. The Father and Jesus. And if ALL authority has been given to Jesus by the Father, and we can only know the Father through Jesus, we are given permission, in fact encouraged to refer to Jesus as our God without bifurcating the Father.


  14. Craig says:

    You’ve not yet explained how Jesus’ baptism fits into your schema.


  15. SLIMJIM says:

    Brother this post is on fire! Very nuanced, and correcting a bad apologetics (really a bad exegesis) while also noting this is not a “win” by those who are opponents of Orthodox view of the Trinity and Personhood of the Spirit. Very well done!

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Jim says:

    The baptism of Jesus fits this way, I believe. Firstly, as John recognised, it was Jesus who should have been doing the baptising, but instead he came to John. What followed set his ministry in motion. Jesus’s baptism was essential so that he could assume the Davidic messianic mantle. He was prophesied to sit on David’s throne, to finish what David began. Just as in 1 Sam 16:13, David is anointed by Samuel with a horn of oil and ‘from that day the spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon David’, so Jesus was anointed by the only one who could confer that anointing – YHWH, the Father.

    Rather than pour oil on Jesus, the two fold endorsement that Jesus was indeed Israel’s Messiah came verbally from the Father, and in the form of a dove or likeness of a dove. I think the dove motif states that in Jesus we have one who rescues man from the wrath of God, just as the ark rescued Noah and his family from God’s destruction of the world. The dove brought back a sign to the ark that the wrath and judgement was passing. In prophetic vein, the dove-type of anointing on Jesus was the sign that he was to be the means of carrying man though God’s final judgement to safety. He is our ark.

    So now Jesus could properly say, ‘the spirit of the Lord is upon me’ after the very visible and audible declaration from heaven that he was indeed the one the Jews could put their faith in. He had that Messianic covenant endorsement from his Father. But, just as David knew that he didn’t have a ‘person’ on or in him, he had the presence of YHWH over him, a presence that could be withdrawn (don’t take your spirit from me, don’t hide your presence from me), so Jesus referred to the spirit on him as his Father. He and the Father were one; he only did what he saw the Father doing; only said what he heard from the Father; did the miraculous though the Father’s enabling.

    Therefore, the baptism of Jesus set him forth as holding a Messianic blessing from YHWH and fulfilling David’s covenant. The dove was an alternate visible sign of both the horn of oil and prophetically of Jesus as an ark of salvation. Just like all the OT kingly anointings, there is no indication of divine personhood at work, except as recognition that any invisible manifestation (arm of power) was the Father. Any visible manifestation (eg the person with Daniel in the furnace) can be taken as the Logos or pre-incarnate Jesus.

    So can I ask you why you think the baptism of Jesus introduces the third person of the trinity?


  17. Craig says:

    Thanks SLIMJIM!

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Jim says:

    Is the orthodox view of the trinity the most acceptable one because the two dominant mainstream Christian denominations adhere to it? Jesus wasn’t a big fan of orthodoxy, especially not for orthodoxy’s sake, and if the roots are questionable. I’d suggest that’s the case for the Talmud, and then what was endorsed by Constantine.


  19. Craig says:


    I’m not ignoring your comments, just temporarily putting them aside to complete an article. Today is the 10 year anniversary of the blog, and I want to get an article out. It will go into my reasoning behind starting the blog, which will include a bit of personal testimony. Which brings me to a question: Are you subscribed to the blog? It’s the easiest way to get apprised of new articles as they are posted.

    But to answer your most recent question (though it’s likely rhetorical): Of course not. Adherence to supposed ‘orthodoxy’ for the sake ‘orthodoxy’ is just another form of Phariseeism.


  20. SLIMJIM says:

    You’re welcome!


  21. Jim says:

    Happy 10th anniversary Craig. Well done on all the time and persistent efforts to produce such well reasearched and well articulated content. You must be pleased. Keep it up. Your site is an excellent resource.


  22. Craig says:

    Thanks Jim. The article is taking a little longer than I thought. Maybe another hour or so.


  23. Pingback: The Holy Spirit as “Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2? | CrossWise

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: