Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים – while a wind from God — Older bible translations^[1] defined רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים (rûah´élöhîm) as “the spirit of God.” Both these readings are plausible.^[2] The term רוּח (rûah) connotes a moving power that is both mysteriously intangible and unseen; hence, “mighty wind” is an apt metaphor. When read in this context, °élöhîm is used not as a noun but rather as a descriptive adjective connoting a sense of that which is “powerful” and “awesome,”^[3] or suggesting a quality akin to that of a mighty tempest. This may also be the meaning of Genesis 2:4, where the Divine Name יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים (YHWH [´ädönäy] ´élöhîm) are linked so as to suggest the meaning, “Almighty God”, for only an Almighty God can create a world (see notes to 2:4).

One might further add that רוּחַ is the life-breath and life-principle that transforms the chaos of creation into a cosmos. In theological terms, רוּחַ alludes to the most profound dimension that converts, liberates, and sublimates human existence. Johann Peter Lange (1802-1884) is partial to the older translation, “The breath is the life-unity and life-motion of the physical creature; the wind is the unity and life-motion of the earth; the spirit is the unity and life-motion of the life proper to which it belongs; ‘the spirit of God’ is the unity and life-motion of the creative divine activity. It is not a ‘wind of God’ to which the language here primarily relates.”[4] However, it seems that both translations are equally worthy of consideration.

• A Hellenistic Reading of the Text

And the Spirit of God – Older bible translations like the KJV follow the Septuagint’s rendering πνεῦμα θεοῦ (pneuma Theo = “Spirit of God”)—an opinion that most modern bible scholars reject on the basis of the text’s contextual meaning. Obviously this translation differs considerably from the more recent rendering which prefers “a mighty wind.” However, one 19^th century scholar gives nothing less than a “spirited” defense of the older translation.

• Ruach Elohim is not a breath of wind caused by God (Theodoret), for the verb does not suit this meaning, but the creative Spirit of God, the principle of all life (Ps. xxxiii. 6, civ. 30), which worked upon the formless, lifeless mass, separating, quickening, and preparing the living forms, which were called into being by the creative words that followed.[5]

Several feminist theologians also prefer the older translation—albeit for different reasons. An assertion can be made that despite the seemingly ubiquitous amount of masculine metaphors that exist within the world of the Tanakh, there is much activity that is ascribed to God that is admittedly maternal: giving birth to and nurturing children.[6]

Yet it is important to keep in mind that God is never directly addressed as “mother,” or in feminine terms. According to some thinkers, רוּחַ is a feminine noun and this would imply that the “Spirit” of God ought to be viewed not in masculine terminology, i.e., not as “He,” but as “She.”[7] While it is true that רוּחַ is usually used as a feminine noun, sometimes it can connote the male gender as well. For instance, in Numbers 11:31, רוּחַ is masculine, as well as in Isaiah 57:16.

But more importantly, it is specious to exegetically assume that the gender of a word invariably indicates something about the sexual identity of the object being named. They are not one and the same. For example: the Hebrew word for “foot” רָגֶל (räºgel) is feminine; יָד (yad) “hand” is also feminine; עַיִן (aºyin) “eye” is feminine, אֹזֶן (´öºzen) “ear” is also feminine. Curiously, “penis” שָׁפְכָה (šäpkâ) is feminine while the name for “womb” רֶחֶם (reºhem) is masculine; the word for “breasts” שָׁדַיִם (šädaºyim) is also a masculine noun.

In the Hebrew language, gender is relevant only to grammar and not to sexuality; no logical reason is given as to why inanimate objects are engendered. On the semantic level, a distinction is made between masculine and feminine. Indeed, there are many more examples that can be cited, but the point of these illustrations is to show that one cannot theologically extrapolate the sexual ideation of the Divine on the basis of the gendered word. More important than linguistic shades of meaning—God is not bound by gender.

Notes:

^[1] The NRSV translation has its antecedents in Targum Onkelos, BT Hagigah 12a, Rashbam, Bechor Shor, Saadia and Ibn Ezra’s commentary.

^[2] As noted in the Vulgate and Rashi. However, the Targum Neofiti prefers: ורוח דרחמין “the Spirit of Mercy.” For other Christian interpretations, cf. Augustine, Confessions 13:4; Ambrose FC 42:32-33; Jerome, Homilies 10; Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Genesis ESOO 1:117.

^[3] Other examples of this kind of usage in the Tanakh include the Hittites speaking of Abraham as a נְשִׂיא אֱלֹהִים “mighty prince” (Gen. 23:6), Leah’s description of her struggle as נַפְתּוּלֵי אֱלֹהִים: “mighty wrestlings” (Gen. 30:8), or קֹלֹת אֱלֹהִים “the mighty thunderings” of the Sinai theophany (Exod. 9:28).

[4] J. P. Lange, P. Schaff, T. Lewis and A. Gosman, Genesis, or, the First Book of Moses—Together with a General Theological and Homiletical Introduction to the Old Testament, 5th rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribner, 1884), 164.

[5]C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1, 16 (Peabody, MA: reprinted by Hendrickson, 2001).

[6] Isa. 42:14; 49:15; 54:10; Hos. 11:3-4, et al.

[7] Jerome writes in his commentary to Isaiah that the Holy Spirit is the designated representation of the feminine principle and is further supported by the Hebrew word for “spirit.” To quote Jerome, the author of the Latin Vulgate: “In the Gospel of the Hebrews that the Nazarenes read it says, ‘Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me.’ Now no one should be offended by this, because ‘spirit’ in Hebrew is feminine, while in our language [Latin] it is masculine and in Greek it is neuter. In divinity, however, there is no gender” (Jerome’s Commentary on Isaiah 11). Feminist theologians may note Jerome’s last point. Among modern thinkers, the tendency to equate ruach with the feminine continues to attract new adherents. Lutheran theologian Jürgen Moltmann stresses this point in God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, who writes: “And because, to the Hebrew mind, the Spirit (ruach) is feminine, this divine life of creation must be apprehended through feminine metaphors” (New York: Harper Collins, 1993), 10; cf. The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1992), 42; See Barbara Newman, Sister of Wisdom: St. Hildegard’s Theology of the Feminine (Berkeley: University of California Press University, 1987), 190.