Acts 8:16, For as yet He had. In most of our modern English Bibles, this verse supports the notion that the Holy or Set-Apart Spirit is masculine by using the third person singular of the verb in reference to the antecedent Holy Spirit, which is found in the preceding verse. Is this a correct translation?
First, the Greek word spirit pneuma is a neuter-gender noun. To be grammatically correct, therefore, our verse should read, “For as yet, It….” and not “He.” However, the Bible reveals that the Set-Apart Spirit is a Person, so it has to be either masculine or feminine. In our text, the English words “he had” are the one Greek word heyn which is the active, indicative, imperative, third person singular of the verb eymee meaning, in its infinitive state, “to be,” or in its imperfect tense, “was.” In this verse, the verb eymee in this form can mean either, “he was, she was, or it was” (Basics of Biblical Greek, p. 59, by William Mounce).
So how do we determine what the gender should be of the Set-Apart Spirit? In the Tanakh, the Hebrew word for spirit (as in Set-Apart Spirit) is ruach, which is in the feminine gender. Since the concept of the Set-Apart Spirit originates in the Hebrew language of the Tanakh, and since Elohim (the plural Hebrew noun indicating the plurality of the Godhead) reveals himself as both male and female (Gen 1:26–27), it is, therefore, illogical to refer to the Set-Apart Spirit in the masculine gender in Acts 8:16. Therefore, in Acts 8:16, referring to the Set-Apart Spirit as he is a blatant example of scribal gloss, and is an example of the translators bowing to the Catholic doctrine of the third person in the Godhead being male in gender even though the linguistics of this verse don’t support it, and something the Bible as a whole doesn’t support.
This now begs the following question: If the Set-Apart Spirit isn’t male, but is part of the Godhead, then what other gender is there for the Set-Apart Spirit to be?
Dinah Dye proposes that male and female = life…..El+Ruach=life in her teaching on The Feminine Side of the Holy Spirit. Dynamic thoughts there.
having trouble with the format you use to subscribe/follow. i think i was un-subscribed by mistake… sorry….please subscribe me!
You have to subscribe yourself.
ehyeh asher ehyeh
How did the Messiah refer to the Spirit?
There is the matter of translation to be reckoned with, but there is also the reality of a situation. Words are just symbols that do their best to represent reality. Sometimes there are matters that transcend man’s (mankind’s) ability express the truth of reality.
Is the Spirit of any gender, in reality? There are aspects to the Spirit, throughout Scripture, when taken in context, represent aspects of both genders.
ehyeh asher ehyeh
The same could be said about the Father and Yeshua. This gets into ontological issues, which I have a few thoughts on with regard to the Godhead, but, generally, I view as way above my pay grade to be able to discuss intelligently.
Great Work Larry! “Male female He created them in His own Image”
Thank you. My name is Natan or Nathan. Lawrence is my last name. Blessings! I don’t answer to Larry.
Sorry Natan. I don’t know where I got ‘Larry’ from? I wonder which tribe Natan the prophet was from?
He’ll find out when he gets to the New Jerusalem and is informed which gate to go through to enter.
My Bible says God is Spirit. Does spirit have gender? God is titled Father and husband
The female part is the Bride, the Believers. I think of the Spirit of God as it, though pointing to him.
Hi Lars,
While, at one point, Elohim is considered as “father,” at another, Elohim is considered as comforter. This would seem to be the primary function of the female aspect of the Creator.
Just a thought. 🙂
The Bible also says that Elohim (plural) is also male, female, a Father and a Son. One can be a spirit and these other things as well. We’ve got to read all that the Bible has to say about the Godhead, not just cherry pick out a verse or two and make a definition based on that. That’s like the blind men each examining a part of the elephant and describing the whole beast by the part he is holding. Each is correct, but incorrect at the same time. Besides, we limit and downgrade Elohim when we overly anthropomorphize him——make him like humans. He is transcendent and is a class of himself/herself/itself. Does this scare you? It shouldn’t. Elohim is a thing/entity of itself described in human terms more for our benefit than his/hers. He or she can be whatever they want when they want, though the Bible primarily uses the male gender, which is fine with me. This itself teaches us an important spiritual lesson. But this is for another discussion.
Of coarse the Spirit is not human. But I don’t think the Holy Creator would create a Biblically,prophetic prayer language (Hebrew/Aramaic) that had gender tenses for no reason at all just to be superfluous. There is a very good reason that ‘Ruach ha Kodesh’ (Holy Spirit) is written in the feminine tense. I think that if we pray, the ‘Comforter’ will show us why. (and there are probably so many reasons that even go beyond our conventional reasoning:)
I agree completely. Elohim is unsearchable, and we’re children standing at the edge of a vast ocean in wonderment——or better yet, peering into the star-filled heavens silent and mouths agape. I don’t want to quantify him/her. I just want to worship, love and obey. The other pieces will fall into place eventually on the other side. Selah!
Another great article, as always. Thank you for sharing your insight.
I find it very interesting that many people who speak on this subject of the Holy Spirit, would not know it if it tap them and blew on them!! If you are letting the Holy Spirit lead you in spirit and truth of the word of Elohim/Yeshua testimony; maybe just maybe you will be allowed to know. So you know does that change anything in your walk with the Almighty GOD? Probably not, on to the next issue(s). Thanks Natan for sharing and have a blessed Sabbath day. Shalom
Thanks for your work on this topic. Before we can even define a gender for the Holy Spirit, should we not ask whether the Holy Spirit is a being, like the Father and Son.
Isn’t is curious that all of Pauls greetings omit the Holy Spirit, this would be very rude to not honour the GodHead(for lack of better term)
Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:2;2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; and Philemon 1:3
The word it self in Hebrew ruʹach and the Greek word pneuʹma are wind and breath gives us a vivid picture of what the Spirit does, it directs, it drives, it give power(as in filling a sail), yet this directing has a source, and that source is Elohim. This is why it is call the Spirit of God or the Spirit of your Father(Mat 10:20).
Now we are not to ignore the little word ‘of’ which defines who the authority is. We can say the keys of Bob, this tells us the keys are under Bob’s control and ownership. Without Bob exercising control over the keys, nothing happens. Likewise Elohim directs His Spirit to do His bidding.
Now the discussion has examples where gender specific pronouns are used for the Holy Spirit, giving us the impression that the Holy Spirit is a being. Let’s understand that Greek word pneuʹma is gender neutral, however in many cases it has not been translated as such due to already in-trenched Trinitarian beliefs(KJV from 1600s). Yet other places the gender neutral is use as in Romans 8:16 says, “The Spirit itself..” and not himself.(need to look at Old KJV, NKJV has himself)
In addition is is not uncommon in Biblical literature to personify things, it helps us to relate thus helping us better to understand the purpose, giving us a vivid picture.
If the Holy Spirit is indeed a being on par with Elohim and his Son, then this bring up other questions, should we pray to the Holy Spirit. I can’t find any scripture that support this. We pray through the Holy Spirit, it is what connects us to Elohim and his Son and to every other believer who has the Holy Spirit. How can one pray to that which he prays through? Shall one pray to the hand of God? (Luke 11:20 compare Matt 12:28)
So as I see it, the Holy Spirit is the power of Elohim. Personification is used for us to relate to the work of the Spirit, as well in some case gender pronouns are used due to biases.
Direction for the Spirit is:
John 16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
Shalom
You are presenting one viewpoint with regard to the nature of the Set-Apart Spirit—that it is not a person, but a force. (I resist the temptation to call it the “Holy” Spirit, since the etymology of the word “holy” clearly derives from helios, the sun god, and I cannot, if at all possible, attribute to Elohim that which was invented to describe a demon-god.) Yours is the same view point I was dogmatically raised with and believed well into my adulthood. It’s not a bad position, but in my studies over the decades, it, like the trinitarian concept doesn’t take into account all the aspects of the subject. This is why I believe that Ruach is both a Spiritual Entity and a Powerful Force.
When we attempt to quantify that which is unquantifiable (e.g. the “Godhead”) we tend to unwittingly fall into traps and boxes, which we then attempt to label in order to better understand and explain things. Sometimes this is not possible, and is best left undone. Elohim can be whatever he wants to be whenever and however. Period.
Moreover, both those who attempt to define the Spirit as a Person and a Force choose only those scriptures and word definitions that suit their viewpoints. This was your case in defining the Hebrew word Ruach. On the other side, the trinitarians do the same thing—they emphasize the word definitions that speak of its personification. In reality, Ruach has about 30 different meanings, which are only can only be determined by the context in which they are found. Additionally, another tactic we often use to justify our position one way or another is to attribute an allegorical (drash-level) meaning to scriptures that could have a literal (peshat-level) meaning and vice versa. You have done this as well. All sides do it to justify their positions. Not criticizing, just pointing it out.
As is often the case in these difficult biblical concepts, I take a middle of the road position at a higher level where often both sides are right at the same time in some sense, but I find myself at a higher level of understanding where I often incorporate valid points from both sides. This is the case with the perennial Calvinism-Arminianism debate.
Finally, I believe that Paul clearly teaches that marriage is a picture of the Godhead. He calls it a mystery (Eph 5:32). Therefore, father, wife and a child in some way reflects the beingness of Elohim. We’re all looking through a glass darkly, and only see in part like the blind men each groping a different part of the elephant trying to describe it thusly. Your comments are excellent, but, in my opinion, miss part of the bigger picture, even as does the traditional trinitarian viewpoint.
In these end times, truth is being restored, so Yeshua can return (Act 3:21). This means we have to both learn and unlearn a lot of things we have been taught. I hope this blog along with excellent comments such as yours is helping to do this in some small way. Thank you!
[You are presenting one viewpoint with regard to the nature of the Set-Apart Spirit—that it is not a person, but a force. (I resist the temptation to call it the “Holy” Spirit, since the etymology of the word “holy” clearly derives from helios, the sun god, and I cannot, if at all possible, attribute to Elohim that which was invented to describe a demon-god.) Yours is the same view point I was dogmatically raised with and believed well into my adulthood. It’s not a bad position, but in my studies over the decades, it, like the trinitarian concept doesn’t take into account all the aspects of the subject. This is why I believe that Ruach is both a Spiritual Entity and a Powerful Force.]
This comment applies to Holy names(Yeshua, Yahuwah, etc) , pagan names etc, but specifically about the Set-Apart Spirit. Bear with me on this justification (pun intended). Now either we believe the preaching of the gospel is by the will and power of Elohim or of man. You will agree it is by the will and power of Elohim. Jesus said “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.”(Matt 24:14). We see it is to be preached in all the world, how does Elohim accomplish this? We have seen one way is that the word of Elohim has been translated into many languages, but let’s focus on English. Now it is the will of Elohim that his word go to the English speaking people as we are part of all the world. The word first being in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek(point is it was not English), then the translator put pen to paper and came to translate the word, hagia holy in Greek. And he used the word holy which conveys the meaning correctly as it means set apart, your contention is that is relates to pagan word helios. Now I ask you do you think we would contend for Elohim’s word more than Elohim? He magnifies his word above his name(Ps 138:2). Is Elohim so limited that he could not have cause the translator to choose a different word, or cause leprosy on that hand until a proper word is chosen? If Elohim who clearly has and had the power to correct this at the onset, however chose not to, what does it tell us? That the English translation as we receive it in our language , even with some errors and some words that do not 100% convey the intended meaning, is still adequate for us to come to the knowledge of the truth. I’m not saying not to use set-apart, or other Hebraic names, when we discover an alternate word, however we’re making an issue which the Father could correct in an instant, if it really was a big issue. So this just becomes a stumbling block and issue of contention of our own making.
[When we attempt to quantify that which is unquantifiable (e.g. the “Godhead”) we tend to unwittingly fall into traps and boxes, which we then attempt to label in order to better understand and explain things. Sometimes this is not possible, and is best left undone. Elohim can be whatever he wants to be whenever and however. Period.]
[Moreover, both those who attempt to define the Spirit as a Person and a Force choose only those scriptures and word definitions that suit their viewpoints. This was your case in defining the Hebrew word Ruach. On the other side, the trinitarians do the same thing—they emphasize the word definitions that speak of its personification. In reality, Ruach has about 30 different meanings, which are only can only be determined by the context in which they are found. Additionally, another tactic we often use to justify our position one way or another is to attribute an allegorical (drash-level) meaning to scriptures that could have a literal (peshat-level) meaning and vice versa. You have done this as well. All sides do it to justify their positions. Not criticizing, just pointing it out.]
You state that when we attempt to ‘quantify that which is unquantifiable’ we get into trouble, my words. Agreed, but we don’t have to go there. As your comment ‘best left undone’ concurs. Elohim, his plan, his purpose, his attributes etc, all that he needs us to know and wants us to know is quantifiable. Beyond that is our speculation. Right now we’re on a need to know basis, as the plan progresses, we will get more of what we need to know.
Regarding choosing scriptures to justify our position, this a given. Yahushua used scripture, the apostles used scripture, the prophets use scripture to justify their position. The issue is whether all angles are covered, including the objections and the position taken is most the reasonable. I say most reasonable as in some cloudy issues, like this one, there are reasonable answers on both sides, but we need to go with the most reasonable explanation.
The most compelling evidence that the Set-Apart Spirit is not a being is when we look into the throne room of heaven. We see the Father is on the throne, Yahushua is on the throne, the bride is on the throne, the Set-Apart Spirit is no where to be found. Rev 3:21. Would you elevate your daughter in law above your wife? Would the Father give honour to the bride above his so called wife?
Of course the ruach has many different meanings, because it is an expression of Elohim. When some one writes a letter, the emotions of that person can come through in the expressions used, whatever the person wants to convey to the reader is picked up in the words. Is the words the person? Some people are so gifted at expressing themselves in words, that although the person is far away, the reader can say I feel your emotions, of I feel like you’re with me and so on. The point is words can be used as medium to transport us into the heart of someone else. So when we see female qualities or male qualities expressed in words, does that mean they are literal female or male. No they are conveying qualities we associate with maleness or femaleness.
[As is often the case in these difficult biblical concepts, I take a middle of the road position at a higher level where often both sides are right at the same time in some sense, but I find myself at a higher level of understanding where I often incorporate valid points from both sides. This is the case with the perennial Calvinism-Arminianism debate.]
[Finally, I believe that Paul clearly teaches that marriage is a picture of the Godhead. He calls it a mystery (Eph 5:32). Therefore, father, wife and a child in some way reflects the beingness of Elohim. We’re all looking through a glass darkly, and only see in part like the blind men each groping a different part of the elephant trying to describe it thusly. Your comments are excellent, but, in my opinion, miss part of the bigger picture, even as does the traditional trinitarian viewpoint.]
You are relating marriage to a picture of the Godhead, then you conclude ‘Therefore, father, wife and a child in some way reflects the beingness of Elohim.’ That equation of father, wife and child is not the equation I see in the bible, I see Father, Bridegroom and Bride, with Set-Apart Spirt as the down payment or engagement gift, also our guarantee that Yahushua will come for his bride at the time the Father says(Eph 1:13-14). The mystery, I believe, is the time Yahushua is coming for his bride “Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” The ancient Jewish wedding ceremony give us insight into this.
[In these end times, truth is being restored, so Yeshua can return (Act 3:21). This means we have to both learn and unlearn a lot of things we have been taught. I hope this blog along with excellent comments such as yours is helping to do this in some small way. Thank you!]
Great blog – really do appreciate all you are doing, I’ve gain a lot of wisdom and insight from your writings. I do agree that all crooked paths will be set straight. Thank You.
Thank your for your polite demeanor.
First, I’m on a search for truth and purity. That’s why I say Set-Apart Spirit instead of Holy Spirit. Yah knows the language of our hearts regardless of language and terms. But some of us have been privileged with more light, so we’re held to a higher level of accountability. Holy Spirit has a pagan taint to it. That’s why I avoid it, but I’m not legalistic about it, and don’t force it on others. I know all the arguments pro and con, backwards and forwards on these issues. This is where I’ve landed.
With regard to the nature of the Spirit. Yes, there’s only one throne at the end of Revelation and the Ruach isn’t mentioned. The Father isn’t mentioned either. Does this prove the Father doesn’t exist? Hardly. This doesn’t prove or disprove the personhood or not of the Ruach or the existence or not of the Father. This is simply anecdotal. What it proves is that Elohim is one, there is one throne and the Father, Son and Spirit have reunited into one entity as they were prior to creation. They split into three for the simple purpose of dealing/interacting with humans. In the olam haba, this will no longer be necessary. I know I probably opened a can of worms here, and left some folks guessing as to what I mean, but we’ll save that for another discussion.
Third, in many places, the Bible presents the Ruach as a force, but the apostles sure did a great of job personifying it! Can’t deny that or allegorize that away. It’s fact. The NT gives ample evidence that the Ruach has beingness and personality. I can’t deny that. That’s why when all the Scriptures are considered, I have come to the opinion that it’s a force and a personality. That’s the only way I know to reconcile ALL the scriptures on the subject.
Beyond that, we can agree to disagree on this point. It’s not salvational, and I don’t believe this difference of opinion will in any way impede the work of the Ruach in one’s life or hinder one’s faith.
Great discussion!
Indeed – iron sharpens iron. I like your position on these topics, in that you have a stance, yet you do not force it on anyone. We’re all at different levels and as more dots get connected a clearer picture emerges.
Shalom.
Thank you.
In taking my position, I’m not trying to find the middle road that satisfies all views. This is the path of accommodation and syncretism eventually leading to ecumenism—a demonic concept. No, what I try to do is study everything the Bible has to say on a subject and then attempt, by YHVH’s grace and Spirit to put the pieces together as best is humanly possible taking into account everything (the full counsel of the Word of Elohim): context, linguistics, historical perspective, Hebraisms, the Torah, etc., etc. This is how ultimate truth is arrived at. None of us is there yet, but let’s keep pushing onward and upward for the glory of YHVH!