Examining the identity of the Holy Spirit requires that numerous questions be answered.  Do the Scriptures identify the Spirit as a He or an It?  Is the Spirit a person?  If so, how do we account for the scriptures that speak of the Spirit in impersonal terms?  If not, how do we account for the scriptures that speak of it in personal terms?  We will attempt to answer these questions and others in the remaining portions of this article. 

He or It?
The vast majority of Bible translations speak of the Holy Spirit as a person, using the masculine pronoun “he.”  In some cases this translation would be appropriate and yet in others it would not.  How so? 

Greek and Hebrew nouns, unlike English, possess a gender.  Some nouns are masculine, others neuter and yet others feminine.  These two languages generally rely on the gender of the noun to determine the gender of the pronoun that will be used.  Therefore, if a noun is neuter a neuter pronoun will be used, while a masculine noun will be given a masculine pronoun.  

Looking to the New Testament we observe that the noun pneu=ma* is translated as spirit and it is a neuter noun.  Therefore when this noun is used to speak of “the Holy Spirit,” the accompanying pronouns are also neuter. (cf. Rom 8:16, 26)  Ignoring this fact the majority of Bible translations render the Greek neuter pronoun with the masculine English pronoun ‘he.’  This, of course, is more interpretation than translation.  While at times the neuter pronoun is used of persons, the translators are forcing the reader to see the Holy Spirit as a person because the translator views the Spirit as such, not because it necessarily is.  The best solution, of course, is to always be true to the text, allowing the reader to interpret it.

While these points are true, we cannot at the same time overlook that Jesus identified the Holy Spirit as a ‘Comforter’ or ‘Helper.’ (Joh. 14:26; 15:26; 16:7, 13)  In doing this Jesus made use of a masculine noun, and so as we noted, the corresponding pronoun is also masculine.  As such, it is properly translated with the English masculine pronoun, but again, irregardless of whether or not the Spirit is a person.

At this point one might observe that it would be correct to identify the Holy Spirit with both the masculine he and the neuter it.  This, of course, is merely from a translator’s perspective, for this is based purely on grammatical gender.  Some have come to ignore the purely grammatical background of the cited passages, making an unjustified theological argument.  In the texts where we are presented with a masculine noun/pronoun it has been argued that because both the masculine noun translated comforter and the neuter noun translated spirit are present, somehow the masculine pronoun is significant.  Such arguments display either a lack of understanding the Greek, or an overzealous interpretation that is not true to the text.   On this point, Daniel Wallace observes:  “Thus, contrary to the supposition that the proximity of pneu=ma to e)kei=noj in John 14:26 and 15:26 demonstrates the Spirit’s personality, because the pneu=ma is appositional, it becomes irrelevant to the gender of the pronoun… The fact that pneu=ma and not para/klhtos is the appositive renders the philological argument in these two texts void... in John 16:13  e)kei=noj is best explained as reaching back to v[erse] 7, where para/klhtos is mentioned.”[1] 

Can anything conclusive be said on this matter of what pronoun should be used for the Holy Spirit?  From grammar alone we cannot give a definitive answer, but there is reason to make a probable conclusion. The New Testament authors could have constructed the verse according to sense (constructio ad sensum).  In making use of this the Greek speaking authors were able to override the rules of grammatical gender and use pronouns that were in line with the subject’s natural gender.  If the authors were attempting to teach that the Spirit were a person, they could have used a masculine pronoun with the neuter noun (as an example, see Rom. 2:14) However, the lack of such a presentation by the New Testament authors is telling, lending to the conclusion that it is best to refer to the Holy Spirit by the neuter ‘it.’ 

While calling the Holy Spirit an ‘it’ might sound degrading to some people, it is simply what the evidence points to.  Even on the rare occasions where Jesus did use the masculine demonstrative pronoun, this was done purely for grammatical reasons as demonstrated by his simultaneous use of the neuter relative pronoun. (Joh. 14:26)  Indeed, if the New Testament authors had understood the Holy Spirit to be a person they were presented with numerous opportunities to show us this by the simple use of a masculine pronoun that had a neuter noun for an antecedent, and yet not one single instance of this can be found. 

God or Lord?
It is interesting to observe that the Bible never directly calls the Holy Spirit God.  Trinitarians, in an effort to come up with a proof text for this, have turned to what they view to be a parallelism, where the Holy Spirit is spoken of and then in a perceived parallel they believe that the Spirit is identified as God. (Act. 5:3-4) The argument is made that the text reads as follows: “Why did Satan fill your heart for you to lie to the Holy Spirit… You did not lie to men but to God.”  With the view of “the Holy Spirit” and “God” serving as parallels for the same referent the conclusion is made that the Holy Spirit is God.  Is this accurate? 

Daniel Wallace makes a valid objection to this line of reasoning. He properly notes that there is nothing to indicate this one-to-one parallelism that Trinitarians look for, instructing us to “see, for example, Judg 16:19-20 (here, Samson's strength 'left him' in one verse; then he understands this to mean that the Lord 'left him' in the next... in the least, this kind of text should give us pause about using Acts 5:3-4 for equating the Holy Spirit with God without sufficient nuancing."[2]  In Wallace’s text Jehovah provided the strength to Sampson and so when it left him it was God leaving him, by taking his blessing away.  This did not mean that Jehovah was the attribute of strength, but he was the provider of it.

We observe a similar parallelism (or lack thereof) within Deuteronomy 31:3 where we read, “Jehovah your God will cross over before you… Joshua is the one who shall cross over before you.”   In this text we find a parallel thought of both God and Joshua being the one to cross before the people.  Were Joshua replaced with Jesus or the Holy Spirit, this, as in Acts 5:3-4, would come to serve as a Trinitarian "proof text."  Yet the fact that it is Joshua and not either of these demonstrates the erroneous nature of such an argument. 

What then is the sense of Acts 5?  To answer that we must first understand exactly how the Spirit was lied to.  Within the context Ananias had sold his property and determined to donate the money to the church.  The money was his to do with as he pleased, but he took some of it for himself and yet continued to donate it as though he were donating the full amount that he had received of the property.  It was in holding back some of the amount for himself while presenting the offering as the full amount that the lie was found. 

It is especially interesting to observe the difference in meaning between verses 3 and 4 of Acts 5.  Specifically, the verb translated “to lie” has a meaning that changes slightly between verses 3 and 4.  This is not a theological difference, but one noted in grammar.  Vincent explains: "The design of Satan was to deceive the Holy Ghost. To lie to would require a different case in the noun, which occurs in Acts 5:4, where the same verb is properly rendered lie (unto God). Satan fills the heart to deceive. The result of the attempt is merely to lie."^[3]  The subtle difference, confirmed by BDAG^[4], is significant. Ananias did not actually speak a lie to the Spirit as though it was a person, but the thought is of deception.  The Spirit was to be ‘deceived’ by secretly holding back the full amount of money. 

Considering the text in context, we first recognize that Ananias was presenting the money to the apostles. (Act. 5:2)  They were filled with the Spirit (Act. 2:17), and, as Robertson explains, "The Holy Spirit had been given them to guide them into truth (John 15:13)."^[5]   So Ananias was attempting to deceive the Spirit by thinking that he could put the truth of the matter past the Spirit-filled Apostles.  Yet, it had been promised that the Spirit would ‘guide them to the truth,’ and so he greatly erred.  By his Spirit God revealed the truth.

As seen, there is little room by which to argue that the Spirit is here called God.  Similar parallels between God and others exist in Scripture that warrant no such conclusion, and so neither does this text.  But does this verse demand that the Spirit at least be an independent person?  No, because the Spirit is logically understood to be the means of revelation.  Ananias attempted to deceive the Spirit within the Apostles in that he thought the apostles would not know the truth.  He lied to God by making a false offering to God, offering it to him as the full amount of the land when in fact it was not. 

If the Spirit is not identified as God, is it identified as the Lord? Turning to 2 Corinthians 3:17 we find the text to read that “the Lord is the spirit.”  Who though is “the Lord” here?  And what does the second clause mean, when it says, “Where the spirit of the Lord is there is freedom”?  Per the context of this passage we find that Christ is the one that removes the veil from their eyes (3:14).  Following this we learn that where the law (Moses) is read there is a veil (3:15) and the Lord removes this (3:16).  From this we can reasonably conclude that “the Lord” is Christ himself.  Then, when the text speaks of “the spirit of the Lord,” we understand this to be his influence.  He himself removes the veil from their eyes, and by doing so he provides them with freedom.  There is no contextual ground in taking this reference to be about the Holy Spirit, for to do so would then having the text speaking of the Spirit of the Holy Spirit!

Not a Distinct Person
To understand the Biblical teaching on the identity of the Holy Spirit, we must first go to the where the foundation of the teaching is laid.  We must turn to the Hebrew Scriptures.  Elwell’s Evangelical Dictionary lays out the Old Testament teaching on the Holy Spirit: "In the OT the spirit of the Lord (ruah yhwh; LXX, to pneu=ma kyriou) is generally an expression for God's power, the extension of himself whereby he carries out many of his mighty deeds (e.g., 1 Kings 8:12; Judg. 14:6ff; 1 Sam. 11:6) . . . . The OT does not contain an idea of a semi-independent divine entity, the Holy Spirit. Rather, we find special expressions of God's activity with and through men."^[6] [emphasis added] 

We further observe what is stated by The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: "The Spirit of God, therefore, as based upon the idea of the ru¯ah? or breath of man, originally stood for the energy or power of God (Isa. 31:3; compare A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, 117-18), as contrasted with the weakness of the flesh."^[7] 

Now we certainly grant that these sources argue from the New Testament that the doctrine progressed and developed and the Holy Spirit came to be revealed as a person.  We, however, for the reasons laid out in the article, can do nothing other than deny this notion.  Jesus explained at John 4:22 that the Jews “worship what they know.”  They knew who and what God was, and as such there was not a need for a new revelation of God's nature. 

Considering the Hebrew Scriptures we must first point out David’s view of the Holy Spirit.  Psalm 55:11 reads: “Do not cast me out from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.”  On this text we observe Albert Barnes’ comments.  While he does not take this to contradict the Trinitarian notion of the Holy Spirit, what is essential is that he and we also observe how David himself viewed it.  He states: "It is not certain that David understood by the phrase ‘thy Holy Spirit’ precisely what is now denoted by it as referring to the third person of the Trinity. The language, as used by him, would denote some influence coming from God producing holiness, ‘as if’ God breathed his own spirit, or his own self, into the soul."^[8] 

In David’s eyes, the Holy Spirit was not a person of the Triune God and in fact it was not a person of any sort.  It was as if God extended himself from heaven through his influence.  This was the view of David and it is a view consistently found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. 

The appropriateness of David’s position is brought to light in the words of Joel 2:28.  It reads: “And it shall be afterward, I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.”  The Holy Spirit is something poured out upon people.  The response to this is generally to observe other texts where people speak of being poured out, but a quick check of these shows a complete lack of parallelism.   Let us briefly review these.

Isaiah 53:12 is pointed too, where in Messianic prophecy Jesus is spoken of as having “poured out his soul to death.”  This language does little to parallel something that is given to all flesh, as the text is simply a poetic way of saying Christ gave up his life.  We find that Paul makes a similar use of language in 2 Timothy 4:6, where he is doing nothing more than stating that he will soon die.  Finally we note that David uses such language of himself in Psalm 22:14, here referencing his strength through poetic language where he also describes his heart as wax. 

As a review of these other texts show, they bear little resemblance to when God says that he will pour out the Holy Spirit.  For the Holy Spirit, to be poured out is to be distributed among men.  It was given to people much like you would pour water from a jug into glasses and give each person a glass of water. 

This notion in line with how the author of Hebrews described the giving of the Holy Spirit.  Reading Hebrews 2:4 we observe that numerous translations speak of “gifts” given by the Holy Spirit and yet the word “gifts” is not found within the text, nor is it implied.  The Expositor’s Greek Testament well explains the meaning of the passage: “The genitive is genitive objective, ‘distributions consisting of the Holy Spirit’.”^[9]  This means that the Holy Spirit is something distributed and as such, it must be in some sense divided, in line with how the term is used in Hebrews 4:12.  This is very much in line with it being poured out as water is poured into glasses and distributed. 

This argument can further be seen in the account of Moses and the seventy elders.   Examining Numbers 11:25 we note what follows: “And Jehovah came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took of the spirit which was on him, and put it on the seventy men of the elders.”  To take “of the Spirit,” is to take ‘some’ of it, as a number of Bible translations note.  A portion of what was on Moses was taken away and distributed among the seventy.  This is not a characteristic of a person.

Similarly we note other texts that clearly identify the Holy Spirit as something other than a person.  It is something that people can “extinguished” (1Thes. 5:19) and it is listed among things possessed. (2Cor. 6:6)

Interestingly, the Bible teaches that we are "filled with the Holy Spirit," (Act. 9:17; Eph. 5:18) something not at all characteristic of a person.  To object to this, some have pointed to texts where others are said to fill people, but the differences is that in these texts either those persons are said to perform the act of filling or, in the case of God or Christ, we are filled with a fullness not of their person, but that belongs to them.  (Eph. 3:19)  In contrast, to be filled with the Holy Spirit is to have God's influence be within us, impacting our way of life.  This is not at all something that would be said of a person!     

A Person?
Having considered a strong sampling of the texts that speak against the distinct personhood of the Holy Spirit, it seems natural to understand the Spirit in a way such we have herein defined.  It is God’s influence, his personal activity as seen apart from his presence.  This is truly brought to light when Bible closely parallels the spirit of man with the spirit of God.  In doing so, none would argue that the human spirit is a distinct person within a human, and so by parallel, it makes little sense to speak of the Holy Spirit as one either. (1Cor. 2:11) How then do Trinitarians arrive at their position?

The New Testament often makes use of personal verbs to describe the activities of the Holy Spirit.  For example, it is spoken of as both grieving and having a will. (Eph 4:34; 1 Cor. 12:11)  With the use of such personal statements it is concluded that the Holy Spirit is a person.  While on the surface this line of reasoning can seem to be extremely convincing, it fails to recognize the literary background of the Bible and the full corpus of texts that define for us what the Spirit is. 

As Jewish literature, the Bible presents language in a way that was understood by those contemporary to it.  Though inspired of God, each individual Biblical author had a unique writing style, and while each author (specifically those who wrote multiple books or epistles, or those who wrote books that were compiled over a period of time) may have changed over time in various ways, their individual styles still reflected the times in which they lived.  One common literary tool that was then in use (and continues to be today, though not to the same extent) is personification. 

Jewish literature, which includes the Bible, frequently makes use of anthropomorphic language to personify various impersonal things.  In other words, something impersonal is taken and spoken of by language used to describe humans.  Wallace observes this point and also the error made by Trinitarians in appealing to texts where personal verbs are used, noting that “the N[ew] T[estament] speaks of the Holy Spirit in personal terms, especially as the subject and object of personal verbs (e.g. teaching, grieving, blaspheming, etc.). Many theologians and exegetes appeal to such texts as though they demonstrate the personality of the Spirit without showing how similar phenomena in Jewish literature do not demonstrate this.”^[10]

Jewish literature, within which the Bible is included, present personification on a regular basis.  For example, water and blood are personified along with the Spirit in bearing witness. (1Joh. 5:7) Wind is said to have a will (Joh. 3:8), while a stone is said to ‘hear’. (Jos. 24:27)  Within Jewish literature apart from Scripture we see that death is said to be a friend with those whom a covenant is made. (Wis. 1:16)  Virtue is said have a memory, it is imitated and it “marches crowned in triumph.”  (Wis. 4:1)  Further, penitence is said to “entreat” God, to be a “mother” and we are told that “the angels do her reverence.” (Joseph and Aseneth 15:7-8) 

How then does this relate to the New Testament?  To answer this we must consider a few examples of where personal verbs are attributed to the Holy Spirit.  When we consider the example of the Holy Spirit ‘grieving’ in Ephesians 4:34, how is this personification?  Albert Barnes, though a Trinitarian, does not take the text literally, and what he presents properly represents our view of anthropomorphic language as used to describe the Holy Spirit and our interaction with it. He states:  “We are not to suppose that the Holy Spirit literally endures 'grief, or pain,' at the conduct of people. The language is such as is suited to describe what 'men' endure, and is applied to him to denote that kind of conduct which is 'suited' to cause grief; and the meaning here is, 'do not pursue such a course as is 'suited' in its own nature, to pain the benevolent heart of a holy being. Do not act toward the Holy Spirit in a manner which would produce pain in the bosom of a friend who loves you. There is a course of conduct which will drive that Spirit from the mind as if he were grieved and pained - as a course of ingratitude and sin would pain the heart of an earthly friend, and cause him to leave you.'"^[11]  We are told to not grieve the Holy Spirit, not as if the Holy Spirit literally feels the grief, but it is spoken of in such a way so we know not to reject the Spirit in a way that we might reject a friend so as to cause him grief.  In other words, when the Spirit is influencing us, we would not want to resist or reject that divine direction.   

Similarly, when we read of the Holy Spirit willing something (1Cor. 12:11) we take this as a personification wherein from a human perspective it was as if the Spirit were willing these distributions.  It is likely that Paul had in mind when Jesus was explaining the operation of the Holy Spirit and he compared to the wind, saying that it blows “where it wills.” (Joh. 3:8)

Considering the context of 1 Corinthians 12 we note that the matter in question is the distribution of gifts.  These gifts are given with a sense of purpose, so it is as if the Holy Spirit were actually the one willing who would receive which gifts.  Why the Holy Spirit?  Because when they received it they also received their individual gifts.  In fact, this very term is used to personify “the day of the Lord” within the Pseudopigraphal Gospel of St. James.^[12]  Here the day of the Lord is said to come when it wills.  Again, just as with Jewish literature outside of Scripture, we do not advance it for theology, but to understand how language and various terms were used in Bible times.  

It is necessary to mention that some texts are abused to show that the Holy Spirit is a person.  Examples of this include where we read of “the love of the Spirit,” (Rom. 15:30) which numerous commentators do not take to mean the that the Spirit is feeling love, but causing us to love.  As A Commentary on the Holy Bible points out, the verse means that love is “awakened by the Spirit,”^[13] to which it appropriately cross-references Galatians 5:22.  Others will point to Romans 8:26 where the Holy Spirit is said to intercede for us with unuttered groanings.  As an intercessor, the Spirit would mediate, but if the Spirit were God, to whom would he mediate?  Perhaps this simply means that the Holy Spirit is another person of the Triune God, but Christ is our mediator. (1Tim. 2:5)  Albert Barnes well explains this text: “This does not mean that the Spirit produces these groanings; but that in these deep-felt emotions, when the soul is oppressed and overwhelmed, he lends us his assistance and sustains us. The phrase may be thus translated: ‘The Spirit greatly aids or supports us in those deep emotions, those intense feelings, those inward sighs which cannot be expressed in language, but which he enables us to bear, and which are understood by Him that searcheth the hearts.’”^[14] 

It is interesting to note that the another Trinitarian argument comes from Romans 8:27, which is not only damaging to their understanding of verse 26, but it is damaging to their doctrine.  Translated literally, Romans 8:27 speaks of "the mind of the Spirit."  It is argued that the Spirit must be a person for it has a "mind."  In context this is far from the sense of the text.  Looking back to verse 6 of this same chapter we again read of "the mind of the Spirit."  The issue for the Trinitarian position is that "the mind of the flesh" is spoken of antithetically.  In other words, "the mind of the Spirit" and "the mind of the flesh" are shown to be contrasting.  The sense of the text is that the mind of the flesh is a mind not possessed by flesh, but controlled by it.  Similarly, "the mind of the Spirit" is not a mind possessed by the Spirit, but controlled by it.  This is damaging to Trinitarian thought, for just as "the flesh" is not a person itself, "the spirit" would not be either due to the clear parallelism.  Rather, these are both motivating influences that push in opposite directions.  Just as "the mind of the Spirit" is not a personal consciousness that belongs to the Spirit, the "groaning" and the "intercession" are not personal activities either, but they are carried out within us by the Spirit's influence upon us in guiding and directing us. 

In light of these points we must conclude that this line of defense for the personality of the Spirit comes up lacking.  There is no good reason not to understand these texts as making use of personification.  In fact, Thayer explains: “In some passages the Holy Spirit is rhetorically represented as a Person ((cf. references below)):  Matt. 28:19; John 14:16f,26; 15:26; 16:13-15 (in which passages from John the personification was suggested by the fact that the Holy Spirit was about to assume with the apostles the place of a person, namely of Christ).”^[15]  For a Trinitarian to use these texts as proof texts would require that one not understand them as personifications, and so to use them on those that do would serve no purpose as the argument would become entirely circular.  As we have come to see, there are several significant texts that show the Holy Spirit to not be a person.  Upon taking these in as evidence personification becomes the only way to naturally understand the text. 

Speaking: By Voice or Inspiration?
Showing that the Holy Spirit speaks is an approach that has proven convincing for some, but in showing this only part of the evidence is generally considered.  The Holy Spirit has been argued to apply to itself personal pronouns and also to be paralleled with texts that identify Jehovah as the speaker.  What do we make of these? 

The most significant text for showing the Holy Spirit as speaking is undoubtedly Acts 13:2, where we read: “The Holy Spirit said, ‘So then separate both Barnabas and Saul to Me, for the work to which I have called them.’“  The view take is that these pronouns are the Spirit’s, for it is the Holy Spirit that said them! 

It is true that the words in some sense came from the Holy Spirit.  When we read that the Holy Spirit “said” them, many are inclined to take this as speaking, which need not be true.  Commentators hold a number of different views on Acts 13:2, with Clarke stating that it is “a revelation of the Divine will [that] was made to some person then present.”^[16]  The People’s New Testament follows a similar line of thought, observing that it is said “by an inspiration given to some one of these prophets.”^[17]  Gill argues that one possibility, in line with what we are here presenting, is that the Holy Spirit is making “an impulse on the mind,”^[18] which is a description that is highly fitting for divine inspiration.

There is nothing within this passage to indicate that the Holy Spirit ever spoke vocally to the disciples.  There is no reference to a voice being heard and certainly nothing indicates that there was a person to whom the disciples responded to.  Rather, it was the Holy Spirit that communicated the express words of either God or Jesus as their Lord.  As the words were communicated through divine revelation by the Spirit, they are attributed to the Spirit.  (2Pet 1:21)

Key to this point is what Jesus said of the Holy Spirit, when he described what it would do, using anthropomorphic language.  He explained: “But when that One comes, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you into all Truth, for He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will announce the coming things to you.” (Joh. 16:13)  The thought here is that the words would not belong to the Spirit itself, but to another.  This is exactly what we understand to be true in Acts 13.

Our understanding of Acts 13:2 is proven correct in Hebrews 3:7 and 4:7.  In 3:7 we find that the Holy Spirit is said to have “said” (or, specifically that it "says") the words quoted from Psalm 95.  Yet those same words are attributed to the Father in Hebrews 4:7.  This can be seen most clearly in that the words, according to Hebrews 4:7, are spoken “by David,” while the author of Hebrews in 1:1-2 expressly identifies the one that spoke by the prophets, amongst which David is included, to be the Father.  So in some sense these words belong to both the Father and to the Holy Spirit, but how? 

The words belong to the Spirit because, as Clarke explains, “David wrote [these words], by the inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit.”^[19]  Additionally, they belong to the Spirit because through inspiration the author of Hebrews was directed to apply them to circumstances contemporary to him.  They had an initial application in the time of David, and a contemporary one in the 1^st century.   

How does this aid our position?  It does so by showing for us that the words of others (in this case the Father’s – Heb. 4:7, cf. 1:1-2) can be attributed to the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit is the inspiring force.  As the means of inspiration behind the words recorded in Acts 13:2, it is only proper that they be attributed to the Spirit as they are.  However, in light of how the Spirit functions, this does nothing to show personality.  

A similar case is observed in Hebrews 10:15, where Clarke argues that “we are assured that Jeremiah spoke by the inspiration of the Spirit of God.”^[20]  This would not give ground in stating that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person of Almighty God any more than being told ‘scripture says’  what Sarah said (Gal 4:30; Gen. 21:10) would equate God’s word with Sarah.  Sarah’s words were what “scripture says” because they were recorded as inspired text, and as the Holy Spirit is the inspiring influence, the words of Jeremiah are rightfully attributed to it as well. 

Having considered these points we must conclude by noting that there is nothing in Scripture that can be said to definitively indicate that the Holy Spirit is a person.  In fact, the texts that are used as proofs are easily and best understood as simple personifications.  There are numerous clear texts that speak against the distinct personhood of the Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is simply the influence of God as it functions with his creation.  With it come power and many gifts.   

What thought of Matthew 28:19?  This is discussed in our article, Does Matthew 28:19 Teach of a Triune God?