{"id":90281,"date":"2024-09-06T15:00:48","date_gmt":"2024-09-06T23:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/?p=90281"},"modified":"2024-09-09T09:57:38","modified_gmt":"2024-09-09T17:57:38","slug":"what-gender-is-the-holy-spirit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/doctrine\/what-gender-is-the-holy-spirit\/","title":{"rendered":"What gender is the Holy Spirit?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\n(Artist Depiction of Pentecost\u00a0 via Pixabay)
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

COGwriter<\/a><\/p>\n

Do you know the grammatical facts about the Holy Spirit?<\/p>\n

The second chapter of the Book of Acts starts off with:<\/p>\n

1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Most groups that profess Christ consider that Pentecost marked the formal beginning of the New Testament church. And we read that God’s Holy Spirit was given and was associated with something that looked like fire.<\/p>\n

Many languages, including koine Greek–the language that the New Testament was written in–use what is know as grammatical gender.<\/p>\n

The koine Greek term for fire is \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 (pur), and it is grammatically neuter. Yet, most people who profess Christianity believe that the Holy Spirit is male.<\/p>\n

Although most translations of the New Testament into the English language use the pronoun “he” related to the Holy Spirit as well as the “relative pronoun” “who,” neither of those pronouns are supported by the Greek text.<\/p>\n

The Greek word for \u2018spirit\u2019 is pneuma<\/em>. It is a neuter gender. It is not masculine nor should it be considered so.<\/p>\n

And what about the Old Testament word for spirit, is that masculine?<\/p>\n

No.<\/p>\n

In the Hebrew scriptures, the terms for \u201cSpirit\u201d used, ruwach or ruah,\u00a0<\/em>for example in Genesis 1:2, are feminine (I once confirmed that with a Hebrew scholar personally).<\/p>\n

Yet, despite that grammatical fact, some point to that term as proof of a male Holy Spirit. Notice something from\u00a0Matthew Henry\u2019s Commentary on the Whole Bible<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Gen 1:1-2<\/p>\n

The plurality of persons in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This plural name of God, in Hebrew, which speaks of him\u2026 The Spirit of God was the first mover:\u00a0He moved upon the face of the waters<\/em>. (from Matthew Henry\u2019s Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus, seeing the term \u201che\u201d in biased English commentaries on the Old Testament in no way supports the concept that the Holy Spirit is a male person.<\/p>\n

Calling \u201cshe\u201d \u201cHe\u201d does not change the grammatical facts.<\/p>\n

Though in the New Testament, many translators often improperly use the pronoun “he” associated with the term spirit, the KJV also sometimes correctly translates this as \u2018it\u2019 though KJV improperly added “self”:<\/p>\n

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:16, KJV)<\/p>\n

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. (Romans 8:26, KJV)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

“It” is the appropriate pronoun. The Holy Spirit is the power of God. And that was the belief of early Christians. It took the Council of Constantinople, under imperial order from Emperor Theodosius, to make certain unscriptural declarations related to the Holy Spirit that many accept today (see also Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity?<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Sean Finnegan in his paper titled\u00a0The Holy Spirit and Translation Bias: A Smoking Gun of Trinity Mischief<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\n

Although most of these Bibles stay relatively true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in most places, nearly all of them still have significant blind spots that subtly lean readers towards a Trinitarian theology. In what follows I intend to expose one of the smoking guns of text tampering as it relates to the holy spirit. …<\/p>\n

After seeing … that seventeen out of the nineteen {translations} use \u201cwho\u201d or \u201cwhom\u201d to refer back to holy spirit, what would someone conclude?<\/p>\n

The most frustrating aspect of this chicanery is that these translations mislead honest-hearted men and women who simply want to read and understand the Scriptures. What is more, most Bible readers implicitly trust the scholars who produce translations in the same way that most people trust doctors or school teachers. This is partly due to the impressive verbiage we saw above in their translation philosophies. The NASB team \u201cadhered to the literal philosophy of translation\u201d and required \u201ca word- for-word translation that is accurate and precise,\u201d yet, they literally did not translate the word \u201c\u1f45\u201d as \u201cwhich.\u201d The NET boasts that its nearly 61,000 translators\u2019 notes enable readers to \u201clook over the translator\u2019s shoulder\u201d and make \u201ctransparent the textual basis and the rationale for key renderings (including major interpretive options and alternative translations).\u201d However, when I look at the footnotes on Acts 5.32, I see nothing whatsoever indicating they flat out changed a word to make their translation more palatable. Ironically, Daniel Wallace was one of the primary scholars involved in the NET and his paper on this subject exposes this very issue. The NIV committee stated that they were committed \u201cto the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God\u2019s Word in written form,\u201d yet they corrected the infallible Scripture in their translation to read \u201cwhom\u201d instead of \u201cwhich.\u201d Isn\u2019t a correction the result of an error? But, if Scripture is infallible, why is the NIV correcting it? Lastly, the NRSV claims it is \u201cthe most accurate and readable translation\u201d and that it \u201cleaves interpretation in the hands of the reader.\u201d Yet, in this verse (and many others like it), it obscures the meaning of the text and does not so much as leave a footnote indicating their decision. So if the Greek is clear, why do nearly all of these translations get it wrong?<\/p>\n

Why do all of these translations think the simple word \u1f45 (which) is really \u1f45\u03bd (whom)?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Perhaps I should probably mention that someone told me that Dr. Daniel Wallace did try to get the neuter gender used for the Holy Spirit when he was involved in a Bible translation project, but that he was overridden. This is even more appalling when it is realized that Dr. Wallace was the senior New Testament<\/em>\u00a0editor of the\u00a0NET Bible<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Dr. Wallace, himself, wrote:<\/p>\n

About half a dozen texts in the NT are used in support of the Spirit\u2019s personality on the grounds of gender shift due to\u00a0constructio ad sensum<\/em>\u00a0(\u201cconstruction according to sense\u201d or, in this case, according to natural as opposed to grammatical gender). That is to say, these passages seem to refer to the Spirit with the masculine gender in spite of the fact that \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1 is neuter, and grammatical concord would normally require that any reference to the Spirit also be in the neuter gender. \u2026<\/p>\n

Many theologians treat these passages as a primary proof of the Spirit\u2019s personality. \u2026<\/p>\n

John 16:7 can be dismissed \u2026 Whatever the reason for the masculine participle in v. 7, it is evident that the grammaticization of the Spirit\u2019s personality is not the only, nor even the most plausible, explanation. Since this text also involves serious exegetical problems (i.e., a variety of reasons as to why the masculine participle is used), it cannot be marshaled as unambiguous syntactical proof of the Spirit\u2019s personality. In sum, none of the gender shift passages clearly helps establish the personality of the Holy Spirit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Before going further in Dr. Wallace\u2019s work, let us see two translations of John 16:7 that do NOT make the gender error, using the term \u201chim,\u201d that most other translations into English commit:<\/p>\n

7 But I tell you I am going to do what is best for you. This is why I am going away. The Holy Spirit cannot come to help you until I leave. But after I am gone, I will send the Spirit to you.
\n(Contemporary English Version)<\/p>\n

7 But I am telling you the truth. It is\u00a0profitable for you that I go away because\u00a0if I do not go away, the Comforter will\u00a0not come to you. However, if I go, I will\u00a0send it to you. (A Faithful Version)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now, back to Dr. Wallace, he wrote:<\/p>\n

There is no text in the NT that clearly or even probably affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit through the route of Greek grammar<\/strong>. \u2026<\/p>\n

Evangelical defenses of various doctrines occasionally are poorly founded. We sometimes claim things to be true because we want them to be true, without doing the exhaustive spadework needed to support our conclusions.<\/strong>\u00a0\u2026<\/p>\n

In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that\u00a0the\u00a0grammatical<\/em>\u00a0basis for the Holy Spirit\u2019s personality is lacking in the NT<\/strong>, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of that doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if\u00a0grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit\u2019s personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment<\/strong>. (Wallace D. Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit. Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 (2003) 97-125)<\/p>\n

John 15:26 \u2026 The use of \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1f32\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 {that one<\/em>} here is frequently regarded by students of the NT to be an affirmation of the personality of the Holy Spirit. \u2026 42 \u2026<\/p>\n

But this is erroneous. In all these Johannine passages, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1 {spirit<\/em>} is appositional to a masculine noun. The gender of \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1f32\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 has nothing to do with the natural gender ending of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1. \u2026<\/p>\n

The view is especially popular among theologians, not infrequently becoming their mainstay for their argument for the personality of the Holy Spirit \u2026 (Wallace D. Greek Grammar. Harper Collins<\/span>, 1996, pp. 331-332).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yes, many rely of false information to promote the trinitarian personhood of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n

An Eastern Orthodox priest and scholar, Dr. Laurent Cleenewerck, wrote:<\/p>\n

Greek manuscripts do not have any capitalization. Hence, the introduction of capitalized forms is arbitrary \u2026 (as in \u2018a holy spirit\u2019 without capitalization) (Cleenewerck L. EOB: The Eastern\/Greek Orthodox New Testament, pp. 33,34).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, capitalization does not make the Holy Spirit a person. Dr. Laurent Cleenewerck also wrote:<\/p>\n

The first thing to notice is that both pneuma<\/em> and ruah<\/em> also convey the meaning \u201cbreath\u201d or \u201cwind,\u201d which explains the subtle nuances of such passages as Genesis 1:2; John 3:8 or James 2:26. On this basis we could say that pneuma<\/em> and ruah<\/em> are used as a reference to an unseen causal agent whose effects are visible.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Greek\u2026 pneuma<\/em> is neuter, which is why it is never spoken of with personal pronouns \u2026 an unbiased translation requires the use of of the conjunction \u201cthat\/which\u201d instead of \u201cwho\/whom.\u201d (Cleenewerck, p. 34).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yet, although Dr. Cleenewerck was the editor of EOB: The Eastern\/Greek Orthodox New Testament<\/em> that particular translation uses \u201cwho\u201d in Matthew 10:20 and John 6:63 (to cite two examples), \u201cwhom\u201d in John 15:26, and masculine personal pronouns \u201che\u201d and “him” in John 14:17, related to pneuma<\/em> as the Holy Spirit. Yes, that translation has intentionally violated the appropriate grammatical rules according to its editor!<\/p>\n

The fact is that there should NOT be personal pronouns\u2014especially male ones\u2014in English language translations of scripture associated with the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n

Ambassador College once published the following:<\/p>\n

Somebody is going to ask: “What about the fact that John uses the personal pronoun ‘he’ when referring to the Holy Spirit or Comforter in the 14th, 15th and 16th chapters of his Gospel?” \u2026 in the Greek language, the gender of a word has nothing whatever to do with whether the thing designated is really masculine or feminine in the human sense at all. lf it did \u2014 what a contradiction in the Bible itself! For in the Old Testament the Hebrew word for spirit \u2014 ruach \u2014 is usually feminine, and only rarely in a masculine form. Gender in language is really nothing more than a convenient grammatical tool. In the 14th, 15th and 16th chapters of John, the English pronoun “he” is definitely used in connection with the word “Comforter” \u2014 but not for theological or spiritual reasons.<\/p>\n

Grammatically, all pronouns in Greek must agree in gender with the word they refer to \u2014 or in other words, with the term that the pronoun replaces. The Greek word parakletos (“comforter” in English) has masculine gender; hence the translators’ use of the personal pronoun “he” for the Greek pronouns ekeinos and autos. “It” would have been a far better rendering into the English language (Just What Is The Holy Spirit? Ambassador College Production, 1983)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Fred Coulter wrote:<\/p>\n

John 15:26, KJV<\/em>: \u201c<\/strong>But when the Comforter<\/strong> is come, whom I<\/strong> will send unto you from the Father, even <\/em>the Spirit of truth, which<\/strong> proceedeth from the Father, he<\/strong> shall testify of me.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

The word \u201c<\/strong>which,\u201d<\/strong> referring to \u201cthe Spirit of truth,\u201d<\/strong> is correctly translated from the neuter pronoun \u03bf<\/strong>. In John 14:17, the translators of the KJV<\/em> had incorrectly rendered this neuter pronoun as \u201cwhom.\u201d However, in John 15:26, they have correctly rendered the neuter relative pronoun \u03bf<\/strong> as \u201c<\/strong>which.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

The descriptive noun \u201cthe Comforter\u201d<\/strong> is correctly translated from the masculine Greek noun \u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/strong> ho parakleetos<\/em>. While this masculine noun is used to describe a vital function of the Holy Spirit, it does not designate the Holy Spirit, or \u201cthe Spirit of the truth,\u201d<\/strong> as a person. A descriptive noun never changes the gender of the principal noun. (Coulter F. A Faithful Version, 2nd edition, Appendix K: Exegesis for the Translation of the Phrase \u201cthe Holy Spirit\u201d as Antecedent in John 14, 15 and 16. York Publishing Company, 2011, pp. 1282-1285)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While “comforter” is masculine grammatically, that is not proof that the Holy Spirit is male or a person.<\/p>\n

The grammatical reality is that the Greek noun pneuma (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1), in all its various forms, is always and only neuter in gender. Likewise, all pronouns that refer to pneuma are always and only can be neuter in gender. If the Holy Spirit were a masculine person, the nouns and pronouns in the Greek text would have to have been written in the masculine gender, as are all the nouns and pronouns that refer to God the Father and Jesus Christ. Yet, as Dr. Wallace and others have concluded, nowhere in the Greek text of the New Testament is the Holy Spirit ever designated by a noun or pronoun in the masculine gender.<\/p>\n

False tradition triumphed truth–this is not new. Jesus complained about that in His day as well:<\/p>\n

7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:<\/p>\n

8 “These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
\nAnd honor Me with their lips,
\nBut their heart is far from Me.
\n9 And in vain they worship Me,
\nTeaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:7-9)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Real Christians do not hypocritically worship God in vain.<\/p>\n

While Protestantism has tended to claim it believes in sola Scriptura<\/em>, the Bible alone for doctrine as opposed to accepting the councils of men that the Roman and Orthodox Catholic churches do, most Protestants have accepted traditions of men over the Bible related to the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n

Anyway, that said, the grammatical gender of the Hebrew word for spirit is feminine and the grammatical gender of the Greek word for spirit is neutral.<\/p>\n

The grammatically proper conclusion after reviewing the Hebrew and Greek scriptures is that the Holy Spirit is NOT a \u201che.\u201d And if one wants to assign a gender to it, \u201cit,\u201d meaning the neuter gender would make the most sense for Christians.<\/p>\n

UPDATE 09\/08\/24: We just uploaded the following related video:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
14:53<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

Gender of the Holy Spirit?<\/a><\/h3>\n

Does the Holy Spirit have a personal gender in the scriptures? Both ancient Hebrew (language of the Old Testament) and koine Greek (language of the New Testament) use grammatical gender when it comes to nouns. In the Hebrew scriptures, the terms for \u201cSpirit\u201d are ruwach or ruah–are they masculine, feminine, or neuter? What about the Greek term pneuma for “Spirit” in the New Testament? According to Protestant scholar Dr. Daniel Wallace are personal pronouns ever grammatically appropriate for the Holy Spirit? According to Eastern Orthodox priest Dr. Laurent Cleenwerck is it grammatically appropriate to use “who” or “whom” associated with the Holy Spirit? Do most translations of the New Testament intentionally violate rules of Greek grammar related to the Holy Spirit? Should people intentionally change the word of God to show a meaning that God did not inspire? Was the King James Version correct when referring to the Holy Spirit as ‘it”? Does referring to a “she” as a “he” make it so? Dr. Thiel and Steve Dupuie go over these matters quoting scriptures as well as scholars who have translated the New Testament into the English language.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here is a link to our video: Gender of the Holy Spirit?<\/a><\/p>\n

Do not fall for false traditions that say that the Holy Spirit is masculine, because scripturally that is grammatically false.<\/p>\n

Some items of possibly related interest may include:<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity?<\/a>\u00a0Or did they have a different view? Here is a link to a related sermon:\u00a0Truth about the Holy Spirit: What THEY do not want you to know!<\/a>\u00a0Here is a link to a sermonette video: Gender of the Holy Spirit?<\/a>
\nDid the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?<\/a>\u00a0Most act like this is so, but is it? Here is an old, by somewhat related, article in the Spanish language\u00a0LA DOCTRINA DE LA TRINIDAD<\/a>. A related sermon is available:\u00a0Trinity: Fundamental to Christianity or Something Else?<\/a>\u00a0A brief video is also available:\u00a0Three trinitarian scriptures?<\/a>
\nWas Unitarianism the Teaching of the Bible or Early Church?<\/a>\u00a0Many, including\u00a0Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses<\/a>, claim it was, but was it?
\nBinitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning<\/a>\u00a0This is a longer article than the\u00a0Binitarian View<\/a>\u00a0article, and has a little more information on binitarianism, and less about unitarianism. A related sermon is also available:\u00a0Binitarian view of the Godhead<\/a>.
\nHope of Salvation: How the\u00a0Continuing<\/em>\u00a0Church of God Differs from Protestantism<\/a>\u00a0The CCOG is NOT Protestant. This free online book explains how the\u00a0real\u00a0<\/em>Church of God differs from mainstream\/traditional Protestants. Several sermons related to the free book are also available:\u00a0Protestant, Baptist, and CCOG History<\/a>;\u00a0The First Protestant, God\u2019s Command, Grace, & Character<\/a>;\u00a0The New Testament, Martin Luther, and the Canon<\/a>;\u00a0Eucharist, Passover, and Easter<\/a>;\u00a0Views of Jews, Lost Tribes, Warfare, & Baptism<\/a>;\u00a0Scripture vs. Tradition, Sabbath vs. Sunday<\/a>;\u00a0Church Services, Sunday, Heaven, and God\u2019s Plan<\/a><\/a>;\u00a0Seventh Day Baptists\/Adventists\/Messianics: Protestant or COG?<\/a>;\u00a0Millennial Kingdom of God and God\u2019s Plan of Salvation<\/a>;\u00a0Crosses, Trees, Tithes, and Unclean Meats<\/a>;\u00a0The Godhead and the Trinity<\/a>;\u00a0Fleeing or Rapture?<\/a>; and\u00a0Ecumenism, Rome, and CCOG Differences<\/a>.
\nBeliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?<\/a>\u00a0Did the original \u201ccatholic church\u201d have doctrines held by the\u00a0Continuing<\/em>\u00a0Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term \u201ccatholic church\u201d to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons:\u00a0Original Catholic Church of God?<\/a>,\u00a0Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover<\/a>,\u00a0What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?<\/a>,\u00a0Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy<\/a>,\u00a0Early Heresies and Heretics<\/a>,\u00a0Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats<\/a>,\u00a0Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more<\/a>,\u00a0Saturday or Sunday?<\/a>,\u00a0The Godhead<\/a>,\u00a0Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession<\/a>,\u00a0Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List<\/a>,\u00a0Holy Mother Church and Heresies<\/a>, and\u00a0Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs<\/a>. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language:\u00a0Creencias de la iglesia Cat\u00f3lica original<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Artist Depiction of Pentecost\u00a0 via Pixabay) COGwriter Do you know the grammatical facts about the Holy Spirit? The second chapter of the Book of Acts starts off with: 1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-90281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-doctrine"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t