Thoughts and Meditations on the Feminine Divine Breath

L’Yachadah Qud’sha B’riq Hu USh’khinteih

“To unite the Holy One Blessed Be He and His Shekhinah (Feminine Divine Presence)”

This is an Aramaic statement of intention that the sixteenth century mekubal, the Arizal, prescribed to be uttered before doing any mitzvah (commandment). It is commonly used, often in one of several variations, by Sephardim and Chassidim, although it is less frequently used in other Jewish streams, and some have rejected it outright, fearing that it impinges on the absolute nature of Divine Oneness. The meaning of this intention, as commonly understood, is that our doing a mitzvah is intended to bring about a revelation of the unity of God’s transcendence and immanence, to show that God is fully present even in the most mundane circumstances.

Among the earliest archeological texts associated with ancient Israel are the late ninth or early eighth century BCE ostraca from Kuntillet Ajrud (Horvat Teman) that state “berakhti etkhem l’Y-H-W-H shomron (or in other cases teman) ul’Asherato”, “I bless you (plural) by Y-H-W-H our guardian (or of Samaria/Teman) and by His Asherah”. Another text, from an eighth century BCE tomb at Khirbet el-Kom near Hebron, reads: "Blessed be Uriyahu by Y-H-W-H, for from his enemies, He saved him by His Asherah.” Some secular scholars have suggested that these texts are evidence of Israelite worship of the Canaanite goddess Asherah, but “His Asherah” is not a formulation known outside of the Israelite texts (Asherah taking the personal possessive pronoun, like El and Ba’al, because it is not just a name but a title), is remarkably similar to “His Shekhinah” in the Arizal’s statement of intention, and bespeaks something belonging to God, not a separate being, like a goddess. The sixteenth century mekubal, the Ramak, makes it clear that “Asherah” is a term for the Shekhinah, the Feminine Divine Presence (e.g., Or Ne’erav, chelek zayn, but also in his work Pardes Rimonim). Moreover, this equation also occurs in some manuscripts of the Zohar (cf. Zohar I, 49a and Matt [2004] in Volume 1 of his Zohar translation pp. 270–271, notes 1259-1264). Thus, although the Arizal’s formulation is comparatively recent, it reflects a very ancient tradition of regarding God as having a “Feminine” aspect.

Now, several questions arise. First, is there any evidence for this in the Written Torah? Second, is this “Feminine Presence” truly an aspect of God or a merely a creation, as some medieval Jewish sources suggest? Third, if it is indeed an aspect of God, are we to take it as a “hypostasis”, introducing a measure of independence that would represent plurality in God, like the “persons” of the Christian Trinity?

The very beginning of the Torah affirms that at the start of creation, before God metaphorically spoke creation into existence, “ve-ruach Elokim merachefet ‘al p’nei hamayim” (B’reishit [Gen.] 1:2) – “and the breath of God fluttered over the face of the waters”. Note two things about this verse – ruach literally means “breath”, which is exactly what the Latin “spiritus” (spirit) conveys, and the word is feminine, as made clear by the feminine verb form “merachefet” (a bird-like fluttering used to poetically characterize the light breathing in and out of involuntary breath). So, before “speaking” creation into existence, God’s “feminine breath” was present, just as breath precedes any human speech. Breath in humans is an involuntary and continuous activity, and without it, the human being will die – it is an essential activity. So to take the Torah’s own metaphor further, God’s “feminine ruach” must be regarded as essential to God, not a creation by God. But, while essential, it is an activity, not having the degree of independence of a “person” or "hypostasis".

There is a further implication of “ruach”. Going back to B’reishit 1:2 and what follows, it is clear that “ruach Elokim”, like breath in humans, not only precedes but also is the actual basis of God’s creative “speech” (cf. also Tehillim [Ps.] 33:6; and also Job 33:4 reinforces the creative role of “ruach”), a further activity that is entirely voluntary (unlike “breath”) and thus, represents the Divine assumption of limitation in that God’s activity of “speech” is existentially limited by its own inessentiality. Therefore, “ruach Elokim” is the God’s freedom to assume limitation. What is more, this freedom to assume limitation is a facet of God’s freedom from any limit. Indeed, freedom from any limit is the freedom to assume every limit, and vice versa. For without freedom from any limit, there is no freedom to assume every limit, since the latter would be limited by not being free from its own essential limit. Similarly, without the freedom to assume every limit, there is no freedom from any limit, since the latter would be limited by not being free to assume limit. Thus, “ruach Elokim” is not merely a power or mediator of God, but is truly an integral aspect of God.

Ruach and Chochmah

The extra-Biblical book called “Wisdom of Solomon” equates Sophia (“Chochmah”) with the “Holy Spirit” (9:17) and characterizes “Her” as Divine “Breath” (7:25). The extra-Biblical book “Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirach)” states that Sophia (“Chochmah”) came out of the mouth of God (24:3).  Thus, it would appear that there is good reason to consider “Chochmah” of the Biblical book “Mishlei (Proverbs)” as equatable with God’s “Ruach” from Gen. 1:2 and elsewhere. Some have raised the objection that while God’s “Ruach”, like breath in humans, must be regarded as essential (inherent) to God, not a creation by God, “Chochmah” appears to have been created (Prov. 8:22-25; Ben Sirach 1:4, 24:9). In fact, in one case, an attempt has been made to consider Sophia (“Chochmah”) as a created angelic nature of God’s “Ruach” existing in “hypostatic union” with “Her”, akin to the relationship of human and Divine natures in Jesus per Christian Nicene theology (cf. Sophia, The Holy Spirit: The Divine Feminine p.16). However, a careful examination of the verses said to assert the creation of Sophia (“Chochmah”) suggest that “She” is not a creation. First, the Hebrew verbs used in Proverbs 8:22-25 are a qal form of “qanah”, a niphal form of “nasak”, and a pulal form of “chul”. The first word can mean “create” but in the Tanach much more commonly means “possess or acquire”. The second word means “installed” or “anointed”, and the third means “born” or “brought forth”. So, a plausible translation of Proverbs 8:22-25 is:

Y-H-W-H possessed me as the beginning of His way,
  before His works of old.
I was installed from everlasting, from the beginning,
  or ever the earth was.
When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth;
  when [there were] no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled, before the hills,
  I was brought forth.

Turning to the ancient Greek translation of Proverbs (the so-called “Septuagent”), we find that the Greek words used to translate Hebrew “qanati” are “ektise me”, with “ektise” from the verb “ktizo”. Forms of this very same Greek verb appear in both of the other verses under consideration (Ben Sirach 1:4, 24:9). In addition to “qanah”, the Greek verb “ktizo” is used to translate a variety of Hebrew verbs in Greek translations of the Tanach, some relate to creation (“bara”, “yatzar”), but others have a variety of meanings, such as “yasad” (found or establish), “kun” (set up), and “shakan” (dwell or settle). So, while some are eager to use the Greek verb as evidence for the creation of “Chochmah” (Sophia), the matter is not so simple, and one can legitimately understand the Greek as “The Lord established me as…”. Furthermore, some have pointed to the linguistic relationship of “ktizo” and “ktaomai”, which means “acquire” or “possess”. With that relationship, we may consider that the forms of “ktizo” used to translate Proverbs 8:22 and the two Ben Sirach verses (no Hebrew version of these verses has yet been discovered) are expressing “possess” just like “qanah”.

So, we are left with no legitimate reason to regard “Chochmah” (Sophia) as created. Instead, like God’s “Ruach”, we should understand “Her” as something inherent (essential) to God, which is “brought forth” in the process of creation, as with the “breath” in creating “words”. So like “Ruach”, there are two aspects – the one that “comes forth” (the “outward breath”, “Chochmah” as “brought forth from God”) and the one that is “within” (the “inward breath”, “Chochmah” as “possessed by God”). The latter reflects the essentiality of the “Ruach”/ “Chochmah” to God, the Divine Freedom to assume limitation that is inherent in the Divine Freedom from any limitation, while the former represents the sense of separateness/distinction from God that marks the actualization of the Freedom to assume limitation and constitutes the very finitude of creation itself and concomitantly defines God as “Creator”. The understanding that limitation, that creation, is an aspect of God’s “Ruach”/”Chochmah”, and that God’s “Ruach”/”Chochmah” is an aspect of God is a two-fold process that is the birth of the “Kingdom of God on Earth”, the realization of Oneness with God even in the diversity of our own existence. This process starts with love for the Beloved, including reverence for all “Her” forms (e.g., harmlessness to all creatures as the cornerstone of daily living), and culminates in the realization that “He is She and She is He”. 

Ruach-Chochmah-Malchut

Two aspects of the Divine “Feminine” have been discussed above – Ruach and Chochmah. There is a third aspect that is the focus of much of Medieval and contemporary Kabbalah – Malchut or “Kingdom” (for example, see http://www.aish.com/sp/k/48971776.html and http://www.chabad.org/ kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380807/jewish/Malchut.htm). Also above, we alluded to a connection of God’s “Ruach’/‘Chochmah” with the birth of the “Kingdom of God on Earth.” Here, let us look at this in more detail.

Each of the aspects presents its own unique step in this process. With Ruach (breath), there is the freedom to assume any limitation, and there is continuity of the “inner” with the “outward” flow. Then, with Chochmah (wisdom) there is an initial step in that free limitation, with a distinction between the intuitive knower, act of knowing, and objects of that knowledge, but no actual separation, since the objects remain within the mind. Finally, with Malchut (kingdom) there is an ultimate step in that free limitation, with not only distinction but with actual separation that can yield a sense of Ruler and ruled. In one sense, in Ruach, there is the most complete experience of Oneness with God since the freedom to assume limitation is essentially rooted in Divine Infinity (freedom from any limitation), an embedding that is readily evident in the continuity between “inner”/”outer” breath. But in another sense, in Malchut, there is the most fulfilling experience of Oneness with God since even in the furthest extent of God’s free limitation, in our separateness as individuals, our individual freedom to choose full surrender to the Ruler is found to be nothing but God’s very own freedom to be us, and God is realized as nonetheless still free from any limitation, hence not separated from us, even in this ultimate limitation. 

Together, Ruach – Chochmah – Malchut, using their first Hebrew letters (roshei teivot), create the acronym RaCHaM, which is the Hebrew root word for both womb and compassion. A “feminine” or “motherly” nature to this compassion can be imputed from the female anatomical association of the womb. There are two aspects to this “motherly” compassion – that which is God’s compassion in allowing us this path to realize Oneness with God and that which is our path to that Oneness through the practice of compassion to all that God manifests.

A Further Meditation

Above, we saw that the "Feminine" aspects of God, Ruach – Chochmah – Malchut, using their first Hebrew letters (roshei teivot – “resh, “chet”, “mem”), create the acronym RaCHaM, which is the Hebrew root word for both womb and compassion. It also is worth noting that “Atzmut” and “Mahut,” the Hebrew words for the Divine Essence, are grammatically feminine. If we add to the “resh”, “chet”, and “mem” above the Hebrew letter “yud” as the initial letter of the Hebrew word “yechidah” or “only one”, which is the feminine gendered word denoting continuity and unity, and is used for the soul at One with God, then we allude to the continuity of Ruach – Chochmah – Malchut and to the idea that, while remaining One with God at the level of the Divine Essence, the Divine Breath also constitutes the substance of projected creation from God, that all is continuous, from the Divine Essence to every creature, even in any and every difference. 

The four letters together spell the word "RaCHMI", a Hebrew imperative – “have mercy” – in feminine gender, invoking the compassion of the Divine in "Feminine" aspect. Repeating RaCHMI in mantra-like fashion is a splendid use of this word to do this invocation. One should have in mind that the compassion being sought is from the “Feminine” “Atzmut” or very Unmanifest Essence of God, the Fathomless “Womb” from which all comes forth. One also should have in mind that the imperative is calling upon one’s own soul – all words in Hebrew for the soul (nefesh, ruach, neshamah, chayah, and yechidah) are grammatically feminine in gender – to be compassionate to all that comes from God.

The four letters together also spell “RaCHMaY”, a very ancient Feminine Divine Name meaning “One of the Womb” or “Compassionate One.” This Name, found in the 13^th Century BCE texts from Ugarit, has been associated by scholars with Athirat (Asherah), Anat, Shapash, or seen as an independent goddess. A contemporary shamanistic approach to Hebrew/Israelite religion views RaCHMaY as follows: “the Womb of All Life, the Mother of Life, and of Life Force in its many, many forms…How can one think of Her, of what She is, and not feel awe?” (Elisheva Nesher, Shophet of AMHA, in The Goddess in America, 2016).

Early Christian Sources for the Feminine Holy Spirit

https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/3225/7763

Introduction

In two previous articles, I discussed the place and role of both the doctrine and the experience of the Holy Spirit in the Early Church (Van Oort 2011; 2012). An important aspect remained, however: namely the fact that many early Christian authors – in particular those belonging to so-called ‘Jewish Christianity’¹ – spoke of the Holy Spirit as Mother.

How did this come to pass? And which consequences may be derived from this phenomenon for present-day discourse on the Holy Spirit?

An essential background to the occurrence of the Holy Spirit as Mother is, of course, the fact that the Hebrew word for Spirit, ruach, is in nearly all cases feminine. The first Christians, all of whom were Jews, took this over. Also in Aramaic the word for Spirit, rucha, is feminine. All this, however, does not fully account for the early Jewish Christian practice. A close reading of the relevant texts will reveal more.

Jewish Christian sources

Origen and the ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’

The first prooftext, which already brings in medias res, is from the Greek church father Origen (c. 185–254). In his Commentary on the Gospel of John, he says:

If anyone should lend credence to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the Saviour Himself says, ‘My Mother (mētēr), the Holy Spirit, took me just now by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great Mount Tabor’, he will have to face the difficulty of explaining how the Holy Spirit can be the Mother (mētēr) of Christ when She was herself brought into existence through the Word. But neither the passage nor this difficulty is hard to explain. For if he who does the will of the Father in heaven [Mt. 12:50] is Christ’s brother and sister and mother (mētēr), and if the name of brother of Christ may be applied, not only to the race of men, but to beings of diviner rank than they, then there is nothing absurd in the Holy Spirit’s being His Mother (mētēr); everyone being His mother who does the will of the Father in heaven. (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John 2, 12 – Preuschen 1903:67)

Origen, who in all probability dictated these lines when he was in Palestinian Caesarea, refers to a ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’. Until today there is much discussion about the origin and contents of this Gospel (e.g. Frey 2012:593–606; Luomanen 2012:1–2, 235–243), but all specialists agree that it was of Jewish Christian provenance. Apart from several other things, we learn from this quote that, sometime in the beginning of the second century CE, the Jewish Christians of this Gospel spoke of the Holy Spirit as Mother (mētēr).

The same is evident in another quote from Origen:

… but if one accepts (the following): ‘My Mother (mētēr), the Holy Spirit, took me just now and carried me off to the great Mount Tabor,’ one could see who is his Mother (mētēr). (Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah 15, 4 – Klostermann 1901:128)

From both quotes we may also learn that Origen himself accepted the concept of the Holy Spirit as Mother.

Jerome and the ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’

The church father Jerome (c. 342–420), who spent many years in Bethlehem, makes mention of several passages from the Gospel of the Hebrews, too. In his Commentary on Micah, he says:

… and he should believe in the Gospel, which has been edited according to the Hebrews, which we have translated recently, in which it is said of the person of the Saviour: ‘My Mother (mater), the Holy Spirit, took me just now by one of my hairs ….’ (Jerome, Commentary on Micah 2, 7, 6 – Adriaen 1969:513)

The essence of the same quote from the Gospel of the Hebrews is found in Jerome’s Commentary on Ezekiel:

… and this relates to the Holy Spirit, who is mentioned with a female name (nomine feminino) among the Hebrews. For also in the Gospel which is of the Hebrews and is read by the Nazaraeans, the Saviour is introduced saying: ‘Just now, my Mother (mater), the Holy Spirit, took me up …’ (Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel 4, 16, 13 – Glorie 1964:178).

In his Commentary on Isaiah, Jerome states:

And also this: (in the text) ‘like the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress’ [Ps. 123:2], the maid is the soul and the mistress (dominam) is the Holy Spirit. For also in that Gospel written according to the Hebrews, which the Nazaraeans read, the Lord says: ’Just now, my Mother (mater), the Holy Spirit, took me.’ Nobody should be offended by this, for among the Hebrews the Spirit is said to be of the feminine gender (genere feminino), although in our language it is called to be of masculine gender and in the Greek language neuter. (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 11, 40, 9 – Adriaen 1963:459)

While Jerome was well acquainted with the old Jewish Christian tradition of the femininity of the Holy Spirit, which in his time was still alive among the ‘Nazaraeans’, who read the ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’, he considered it to be a question of language only.

Epiphanius and Hippolytus on the prophet Elxai

For the Jewish Christians themselves, however, it was not merely a question of language. Apart from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, this is testified by a number of testimonies regarding the prophet Elxai. This Jewish Christian prophet—in the various sources also named as Elchasai, Alchasaios, Elkesai and Elxaios—is said to have received the revelation written about in the Book of Elchasai in Mesopotamia in the year 116–117.

The church father Epiphanius (c. 315–430), for many years bishop of Salamis and the metropolitan of Cyprus, transmits this revelation as follows:

Next he describes Christ as a kind of power and also gives His dimensions (…)And the Holy Spirit is (said to be) like Christ, too, but She is a female being (thēleian) (…). (Epiphanius, Panarion 19, 4, 1–2 – Holl I, 1915:219)

Later on in his book, Epiphanius reports essentially the same:

And he [i.e., Elxai] supposed also that the Holy Spirit stands over against Him (i.e., Christ) in the shape of a female being (en eidei thēleian) (…). (Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 17, 6 – Holl I, 1915:375)

Earlier the learned Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236), a Christian presbyter at Rome, had transmitted the same tradition on Elchasai:

There should also be a female (thēleian) with Him (i.e., with Christ as an angel) (…) The male is the Son of God and the female (thēleian) is called the Holy Spirit. (Hippolytus, Refutatio 9, 13, 3 – Wendland 1916:251)

The Pseudo-Clementines

A next testimony to the Holy Spirit’s femininity may be derived from the so-called Pseudo-Clementines. The Pseudo-Clementines is a work circulated under the name of Clement of Rome (fl. c. 96), which came down to us in two fourth-century forms: the Greek Homilies and the Latin Recognitions. Both forms contain very old Jewish Christian source material. The Jewish Christian concept of the Spirit as a feminine Being is, by implication, preserved in one of the Homilies:

And Peter answered: ‘One is He who said to His Wisdom, ‘Let us make a man’ [Gen. 1:26]. His Wisdom (sophia), with Her (Greek: hei, 3rd p. sing. feminine) He Himself always rejoiced [Prov. 8:30] just as (hōsper) with His own Spirit (pneumati).’ (Ps.-Clementines, Hom. 16, 12, 1 – Rehm 1969:223)

The text identifies Wisdom with the Holy Spirit. This equation of Wisdom (chokma, sophia) and Holy Spirit (ruach, pneuma) has old parallels in Jewish and Jewish Christian traditions. Already in the Jewish book Wisdom of Solomon, preserved in Greek as part of the Septuagint and being in high esteem among most early Christian writers, one finds this equation; for instance, in Wisdom 9, 17 it runs:

Who has learned thy (i.e., God’s) counsel, unless thou hast given wisdom (sophian) and sent thy holy Spirit (pneuma) from on high? (Wisdom of Solomon 9, 17 [Revised Standard Version])

Wisdom is equated with the Holy Spirit and both are considered to be feminine.² Hence one understands how in early Christian tradition Christ is so often considered to be the child of mother Sophia or the Holy Spirit.³ In essence, both traditions express the same concept. The oldest patristic testimonies to this concept are the texts from Origen and Jerome quoted above.

In interpreting all these testimonies, one should bear in mind that ancient Jewish Christianity did not express itself in Greek discursive terminology, but in Semitic metaphorical language. Or, stated otherwise: the Jewish Christians expressed themselves in images, not in logical concepts. Accordingly, one may also understand that the Christian concept of Trinity is not merely due to Greek philosophical thinking, but has genuine and extremely old sources in Jewish Christian writings.⁴ One may reread the statements of Hippolytus and Epiphanius on Elxai’s vision of God with his Son and the female Spirit as quoted above.

Theophilus and Irenaeus

The influence of the archaic Jewish Christian tradition on Spirit and Sophia is even found in Greek Christian authors such as Theophilus of Antioch (fl. later 2nd c.) and Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130–c. 200). In his writing Against Autolycus, the Greek bishop and apologist Theophilus wrote for instance:

God made everything through His Logos and Sophia, for ‘by His Logos the heavens were made firm and by His Spirit all their power.’ [Ps.32:6] (…)

Similarly the three days prior to the luminaries [cf. Gn. 1] are types of the Triad (triados), of God and His Word and His Wisdom (Theophilus, Ad Autol. 1, 7; 2, 15 – Grant 1970:10; 52).

In Greek speaking bishop Irenaeus’ work Against Heresies, which is mainly transmitted in Latin, it runs inter alia:

… the Son and the Holy Spirit (Spiritus), the Word and the Wisdom (Sapientia) (…)

For with Him were always present the Word and the Wisdom (Sapientia), the Son and the Spirit (Spiritus)

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 4, 7, 4; 20, 1. (Rousseau 1965:464; 626)

The Pastor of Hermas

The Shepherd of Hermas is a rather enigmatic and, in all probability, composed document which originated in Rome between the end of the first and the middle of the second century. Its final form consists of five ‘Visions’, twelve ‘Mandates’ and ten ‘Similitudes’. In the second and third centuries, it was accepted as Scripture by several ecclesiastical authors and even Didymus the Blind, a contemporary of Athanasius in the fourth century, included it in his canon of Scripture. It is also found in the highly important biblical manuscript Codex Sinaiticus, dating from the same time.⁵ In many of its utterances, the Shepherd reveals its Jewish Christian provenance.

One of these Jewish Christian features is the concept of the Holy Spirit as feminine. Although the Shepherd of Hermas (now generally classified as one of the ‘Apostolic Fathers’) uses the word ‘spirit’ in a variety of ways, in several cases ‘spirit’ appears to mean ‘Holy Spirit’. One of these cases is Similitude IX (Körtner & Leutzsch 1998:300 ff.), where the Holy Spirit is presented in the image of twelve virgins (parthenoi). The plural should not lead us astray here.⁶ Elsewhere in the Shepherd the Holy Spirit—in her equivalent the Church—is described as being pre-existent and also as an old women (gunē presbutis) (Vis. I, 2, 2; cf. e.g. II, 4, 1 ff.: presbutera in Körtner & Leutzsch 1998:158).⁷

Melito of Sardis

Some decades later, and in another part of the Roman Empire, Melito of Sardis († c. 190) composed his homily On the Passover. It became famous after its discovery and publication by Campbell Bonner in 1940. In its newest editions one finds some fragments added, the seventeenth of which reads as follows:

Hymn the Father, you holy ones;
sing to your Mother (tēi mētri), virgins.
We hymn, we exalt (them) exceedingly, we holy ones.
You have been exalted to be brides and bridegrooms,
for you have found your bridegroom, Christ.
Drink for wine, brides and bridegrooms … (Melito, Frg. 17 – Hall 1979:84–85)

It does not seem to be beyond doubt that the fragment, which follows On the Passover in a Bodmer Papyrus Codex, really stems from Melito. In any case it is a liturgical dialogue, if not part from Melito’s sermon, then perhaps of a baptismal liturgy. In its main theme and imagery, On the Passover is close to Jewish Christian thinking in general and Jewish Paschal tradition in particular. In the just quoted fragment, the Mother is without a doubt the Holy Spirit.

Sources from East and West Syria

As we have just seen with Theophilus, Irenaeus, the Pastor Hermae and (perhaps) Melito, the concept of the Spirit as feminine is sometimes found as an archaic reminiscence of Jewish Christianity in later Greek writers. However, in several Christian writings stemming from Syria, which mainly had Syriac (a branch of Aramaic) as their original language, this speaking of the Holy Spirit as feminine really abounds.

The Gospel of Thomas

Apart from some Greek scraps, the Gospel of Thomas has been mainly transmitted in a Coptic translation found in the second codex of the ‘gnostic’ library which, in December 1945, was discovered near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt.⁸ Many researchers maintain that the Gospel of Thomas—in any case in its original form(s)—was not ‘gnostic’ at all, nor even tincted with typical ‘gnostic’ ideas, but a fine example of primitive Jewish and Syrian Christianity. One of its logia reads as follows:

(Jesus said:) Whoever does not hate his father and his mother in My way will not be able to be a (disciple) to me. And whoever does (not) love (his father) and his mother in My way will not be able to be a (disciple) to me, for My mother (tamaay) (…) but (My) true (Mother) gave me the Life. (Gospel of Thomas, logion 101 – Guillaumont a.o. 1998:50; Nagel 2014:152)

Here, the true Mother is the Holy Spirit.

The Acts of Thomas

The Acts of Thomas recount the missionary activities of the apostle Judas Thomas. It is generally agreed that the composite work, which has survived in several Syriac and Greek manuscripts, was written in Syriac sometime before the middle of the third century. It contains many archaic elements pointing to early Jewish Christian tradition in Syria.

One of these archaic Jewish Christian elements is the concept of the Holy Spirit as feminine. It is clearly found in the following texts transmitted in Greek:

And the apostle arose and sealed them (…): Come, compassionate Mother (mētēr); (…) Come, Mother (mētēr) of the seven houses (…); Come, Holy Spirit (pneuma) and cleanse their loins and their heart, and seal them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (pneumatos). (Acta Thomae 27 – Lipsius-Bonnet 1903 [repr. 1972]:142–143)

… we praise and glorify You (Christ), and Your invisible Father, and Your Holy Spirit (pneuma), (and) the Mother (mētera) of all creation. (Acta Thomae 39 – Lipsius-Bonnet 1903 [repr. 1972]:157)

Come, secret Mother (mētēr); Come, You who (fem.) are manifest in your deeds; You who (fem.) gives joy and rest to those who are united to You (fem.). (Acta Thomae 50 – Lipsius-Bonnet 1903 [repr. 1972]:166)

One may also compare Acta Thomae 7 (the Syriac text speaks of the glorification of ‘the Father, the Lord of all’ and ‘the Spirit, His Wisdom’) (cf. Klijn 2003:29), whereas the Greek text has: ‘The Father of truth and the Mother of Wisdom’) and Acta Thomae 133 (‘We name over you [i.e. the ‘bread of life’ in the eucharist] the name of the Mother [= the Holy Spirit]).

Gospels in Old Syriac, the Odes of Solomon, the Didascalia and the Apostolic Constitutions

A number of other writings from the Syrian world may be briefly dealt with under one heading. The first is the Old Syriac Version of the Gospels, which reaches back to the second century and transmits Jn 14:26 as follows:

… but that (Syr.: hi = she) Spirit, the Paraclete that my Father will send to you in my name, She (Syr. hi) shall teach you everything, She (hi) shall remind you of all what I say. (Evangelium da-Mepharrese – tr. Burkitt 1904:510–511)

In all probability, the Odes of Solomon are a (Jewish) Christian work which is almost certainly written in Syria or Palestine in the course of the same second century. In Ode 36, 3 it runs:

The Spirit of the Lord rested upon me,
and She lifted me up to the height (…)
She brought me forth before the face of the Lord (…)
For according to the greatness of the Most High,
so She made me (…) (Odes of Solomon 36, 3a – tr. Lattke 2009:492)

The Didascalia Apostolorum (‘Teaching of the Apostles’) is an ancient ‘Church Order’ which seems to have been composed in Syria in the earlier half of the third century. In the Syriac text of chapter 11 it runs:

This (i.e., the bishop) is your chief and your leader, and he is your mighty king. He rules in the place of the Almighty: but let him be honoured by you as God (…). But the deacon stands in the place of Christ, and do you love him. And the deaconess shall be honoured by you in the place of the Holy Spirit (…). (Didascalia apostolorum 9 –tr. Connolly 1929:86–88)

Virtually the same is stated in the Apostolic Constitutions, a collection of ecclesiastical commandments dating from the latter half of the fourth century and almost certainly of Syrian provenance:

Let also the deaconess (diakonis) be honoured by you in the place of the Holy Spirit (eis typon tou hagiou pneumatos) (…) (Apostolic Constitutions II, 26, 6 – Funk 1905:296)

Aphrahat and Ephrem

Clear resonances of this kind of representation are present in Aphrahat. As a rule he is said to be the first of the (orthodox) Syriac church fathers and also ‘the Persian sage’. We mainly know him from his so-called ‘Demonstrations’, a work dating from about 340. In the eighteenth Demonstration it runs with reference to Genesis 2:24:

Who is it that leaves father and mother to take a wife? The meaning is this. As long as a man has not taken a wife he loves and reveres God his Father and the Holy Spirit his Mother, and he has no other love. (Aphrahat, Dem. 18 – Parisot 1980:840; tr. Murray 1975:143)

One may add to this quote a passage from Demonstration VI, where Aphrahat speaks of the role of the Spirit in baptism:

From baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ, and in the same hour that the priests invoke the Spirit, She opens the heavens and descends, and hovers over the waters [cf. Gen. 1:2], and those who are baptized put Her on. (Aphrahat, Dem. 6 – Parisot 1980:292–293; tr. Murray 1975:143)

Although Ephrem Syrus (c. 306–373), who wrote most of his extant works in Edessa, conjugates the Syriac word rucha as feminine, one finds only one or two passages⁹ in his œuvre which highlight her femininity. In one of these it runs:

It is not said of Eve that she was Adam’s sister or his daughter, but that she came from him; likewise it is not to be said that the Spirit is a daughter or sister, but that (She) is from God and consubstantial with Him. (Ephrem, Commentary on the Concordant Gospel or Diatessaron 19, 15 – Leloir 1953:277; tr. Murray 1975:318)

Makarios/Symeon

Finally, an extremely rich and influential source is constituted by the homilies of Symeon of Mesopotamia. For centuries, these homilies were transmitted under the name of Makarios (Macarius), an Egyptian monk who lived c. 300–390 and was a staunch supporter of Athanasius. Modern research, however, established that their real author is no other than a certain contemporary Symeon, who lived in Mesopotamia, in the vicinity of the upper Euphrates. The homilies of this Symeon mainly survive in Greek in four collections. The second collection, consisting of fifty ‘spiritual’ homilies, became the most popular, but the other three are important as well.¹⁰

Here I quote only some of the most conspicuous examples, derived from a number of editions of the various collections. In the most influential Fifty Homilies, we read:

And from his (sc. Adam’s) time until the last Adam, the Lord, man did not see the true heavenly Father and the good and kind Mother (mētera), the grace of the Spirit (pneumatos) (…). (Makarios/Symeon, Hom. 28, 4 – Dörries, Klostermann & Kroeger 1964:232–233)

Elsewhere it runs of the Holy Spirit:

She (autē) is the kind and heavenly Mother (mēter) (…) (Makarios/Symeon, Hom. 27, 4 – Klostermann 1961:155)

Repeatedly it is stressed by Makarios that there is no human birth without a mother, and therefore no spiritual birth without the Holy Spirit (e.g. Hom. 8, 1; Klostermann 1961:37). As the mother (mēter) of young birds cares for them, so the Holy Spirit provides food for God’s children (Hom. 16, 2; Klostermann 1961:79–81). At another occasion, Makarios speaks of ‘the grace of the Spirit, the Mother (mēter) of the holy’ (Hom. 27, 1; Klostermann 1961:151).

Over the centuries, the writings of Makarios and/or Symeon have exerted an enormous influence, both in the East and in the West, not only in Syriac Christianity and other Eastern Orthodox circles, but also among Protestants. It is interesting to note that, among many others (see e.g. Benz 1963; Van de Bank 1977), both the very influential John Wesley¹¹ and the also very influential Nikolaus Ludwig Graf von Zinzendorf were deeply influenced by Makarios. Although in the case of the first one I was not able to find any stress on the femininity of the Holy Spirit, in Zinzendorf there is indeed. In his first address in Pennsylvania, for instance, he said that ‘the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is our true Father, and the Spirit of Jesus Christ is our true Mother’.¹²

Conclusions

Here I may conclude. It is not my aim to further look for influences of early Christian testimonies in this respect, nor did I even intend to be complete in my overview of early Christian texts.¹³ I only tried to make clear a certain current, which had its initials in early Jewish Christianity and also exerted its influence on other (‘orthodox’) Christian writers. It seems to have been the same Jewish and/or Jewish Christian influences which, moreover, can be found in many ‘gnostic’ texts, but I deliberately excluded these texts from my exposition.¹⁴ Here I just note that sometimes genuine Christian traditions and concepts, which became forgotten in mainstream Christendom, were kept alive in ‘heretical’ Christian circles.

It would be completely wrong to state that the image of the Holy Spirit as a woman and mother is simply caused by the fact that the Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac words for ‘spirit’ are (nearly) always feminine. Of course this was an important factor, but there were other significant factors as well, such as the link between the figures of the Holy Spirit and Wisdom or between Holy Spirit and the Jewish feminine concept of the Divine Presence or Shekinah.¹⁵ Moreover, it should be remarked that, still, we are dealing with metaphorical language. Religious language is inherently metaphorical, that is, bound to images and similes. By its very nature it cannot define God’s essence. All ancients were aware of the fact that this essence of the Divine remains a holy mystery and is by nature ineffable.

Nevertheless, the very first Christians, all of whom were Jews by birth, used to speak of the Holy Spirit as feminine. These Jewish Christians (or, perhaps better: Christian Jews) adhered to Genesis 1:27 where it is said that God created male and female after his image. If this text is really taken for true, then something female is inherent to God. Apart from the image of a Mother, Syrian and other Jewish Christians stressed the ‘hovering’ (rahhef) of the Spirit as stated, for instance, in Genesis 1:2 and Deuteronomy 32:11.¹⁶ Besides, they attributed to the Spirit the motherly features which Jewish prophetic writings like Isaiah (49:15–15; 66:13) find in God. One may also bring to mind that, according to Matthew, Jesus compared himself to a mother bird (Mt. 23:37). Moreover, when believers are born anew from the Spirit (e.g. Jn 3), they are ‘children of the Spirit’, who is their ‘Mother’.¹⁷

An expression such as ‘children of the Spirit’ is typical to Makarios.¹⁸ It explicitly refers to the motherly function of the Holy Spirit. There appears to be a tender aspect in God (see e.g. Is 66:13) which can only be expressed in the simile of the Mother. This does not mean that in this way we have ‘defined’ God; it just means that in this way we attain a better appreciation of the fullness of the Divine.

Mai, The Holy Breath, and God as Mother

The founder of Mai-ism, Mai Markand, writes “Mai-ism, turning to the Trinity preached under Christianity, viz., that of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, emphatically asserts that The Holy Ghost is only the masculine name of Mother … Nothing can be more simple and spontaneously acceptable than that the Third of the Trinity can only be The Mother.”

While in Latin and in common usage, the “Holy Ghost” is treated as masculine in gender, in the original Hebrew and Aramaic context of Christianity, the expression is “Ruach HaQodesh/Ruach HaQadosh” and “Rucha Qadishta”, both of which are feminine in gender. The words “Ruach”/”Rucha” both convey the idea of breath.

The Bible tells us that creation is accomplished and maintained by the Divine Breath (“Ruach YHWH”, “Ruach El/Elohim”, “Nishmat Shadday”, etc.) (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 33:6; Job 33:4). Breath maintains life and so is essential, is at the very essence of any breathing creature. By analogy, the Divine Breath is the inherent Divine Life Force, is at the very Essence of God. Since the Divine Breath is Biblically used with feminine gendered verbs, it is thus Feminine and the Feminine is at the Divine Essence.

So, even if one does not subscribe to the Christian concept of the Trinity, it is clear that the idea of God as Mother, as conveyed in Mai of Mai-ism, also is expressed in the Bible’s analogy, which places the Feminine at the very Essence of God.

Mary as Incarnate Holy Spirit

Leonardo Boff in his book “The Maternal Face of God” presents the idea of a hypostatic union of the human and Divine in Mary akin to that in Jesus, with the former involving the Holy Spirit like the latter involves the Son. 

Below are some thoughts elaborating on that idea.

The very beginning of the Bible affirms that at the start of creation, before God spoke creation into existence, “ve-ruach Elohim merachefet ‘al p’nei hamayim” (Gen. 1:2) – “and the breath of God fluttered over the face of the waters”. Note two things about this verse – ruach literally means “breath” and the word is feminine, as made clear by the feminine verb form “merachefet” (a bird-like fluttering used to poetically characterize the light breathing in and out of involuntary breath). So, before “speaking” creation into existence, before the “word” that is the formative principle of creation proceeds from God, God’s feminine “breath” was present, just as human breath precedes any human speech. Breath in humans is an involuntary and continuous activity, and without it, the human being will die – it is an essential activity. So to take the Bible’s description further, God’s feminine ruach must be regarded as essential to God, not a creation by God but an aspect of God. Going back to Gen. 1:2 and what follows, it is clear that the “ruach Elohim”, like breath in humans, not only precedes, but also is the actual source of God’s all-formative “word” (cf. also Ps. 33:6), just as human spoken words are derived entirely from breath driven through the vocal apparatus to create sound. Thus, the “breath” of God does and can exist without the “word” of God, but the “word” of God cannot exist without the “breath” of God.

The “breath” of God and “word” of God are not only involved in creation (cf. Gen. 1:2-31; Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6), but are present in each creation (cf. Gen. 2:7, 6:17, 7:21-22; Eccles. 12:7; Deut. 8:3; Ps. 119:89). So, what about an “incarnation” of the “word” or “breath” of God, when they are already so to speak “incarnate”? One can understand this as follows: normally, the presence of God’s “word” and “breath” is not manifest to that particular creation itself let alone to others perceiving that creation, but when speaking of an “incarnation” of the “breath” or the “word” of God, this would mean that this presence is manifest to that creation and, through it, to others. Now, if God's “word” is “incarnate” (manifest to and through), then God's “breath” also must be “incarnate” since, as discussed above, no “word” can exist without the “breath”, its source and substance. And since the “word” is not itself the “breath” but stands in relation to the “breath” as its product, thus, the “incarnate” “word” does not itself “incarnate” the “breath”. Therefore, the “incarnate” “breath” is another, and, as the “breath”, being feminine (cf. Gen. 1:2, Job 33:4, etc.), is “mother” to the “word”, so too the “incarnate” “breath” must be the physical mother of the “incarnate” “word”. So, if in Jesus, the “word” is manifest to him and through him, then in Mary, the “breath” is manifest to her and through her.

Mary's conception of the “incarnate” “word” from the Holy Spirit (Divine “breath”) is not an impregnation by a masculine principle. Matthew 1:18 and 1:20 do not state this in the Greek, but merely that Mary is with child from the Holy Spirit and that what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit, by which one can understand that the child himself, as God’s “word”, originates from God’s “breath”, and nothing more. Luke 1:35 also does not indicate such a thing, but refers to the Holy Spirit coming upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowing her. By Matthew and Luke, we can understand that since the “breath” is the source and very substance of the “word” at God's will in Divine “speech”, the “incarnation” of the “word” in Mary is through the manifest presence (“incarnation”) of its source and substance “breath” in her (the Holy Spirit coming upon her) at the will of God (power of the Most High overshadowing her).

Interestingly, the essential non-voluntary relation of the “breath” to God but voluntary relation of the “breath” produced “word” to God would suggest a difference in the “incarnations” in Mary and Jesus. Mary would “incarnate” what is an essential aspect of God, while Jesus would “incarnate” what is a voluntary aspect assumed by God through the “breath”. This difference therefore contradicts “orthodox” Trinitarian theology, and puts Mary in a very special role indeed, making Mary worthy of reverence quite independently of her relationship to Jesus.

Sarah La-Kali and Unity

Shechorah Ani veNa’vah

“Black I am, and beautiful” – Shir HaShirim 1:5

Every Hebrew name is connected to a verse or verses in the Hebrew Scriptures. There are standard lists of such verses, but any verse beginning and ending with the letters corresponding to the beginning and ending letters of the name are applicable.  In the case of the verse “Shechorah Ani veNa’vah”, we see that it fits the name Sarah, with “shin” and “heh” as the beginning and ending letters.  Is there a black or dark Sarah?  Indeed there is:  Sarah la-Kali – “Sarah the Black” – whom some believe to be the daughter of Jesus (Yehoshua HaNotzri) and Mary Magdalene (Miriam HaMigdalah).  Uniting in her person what a certain Christian esoteric approach regards as the “masculine” and “feminine” aspects of the Divine manifest in her parents as “Word” (Davar/Logos) and “Wisdom” (Chochmah/Sophia), Sarah points to the Unmanifest “Blackness” of the Essence in which those aspects are integrated, from which they arise, and into which they return.

The verse “Shechorah Ani veNa’vah” has 13 Hebrew letters.  The number 13 is the gematria value of “Echad” or “One”.  Thus, the verse evokes unity. 

Channeling a message from Sarah, Rachel Goodwin notes: “In the blessing, Sarah talks about the state of consciousness - 'oneness' that humanity is entering into. She holds the energy of integration and this is part of the blessing; as we receive her energy (that is being channeled out through the blessing) she helps us energetically shift closer and closer towards this oneness. And what does that oneness mean? It means we come into a state of acceptance, of peace within ourselves, that all the parts of us that are 'split off' are returned to their original state of wholeness, and that our 'higher' and 'lower' selves are also gently teased closer and closer towards each other, knitting them more tightly together. How does she do this? "in Her there is no separation" Sarah IS this energy of oneness, so in her presence our energy bodies start in sympathetic vibration to resonate along with hers.” (http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=32ea8e982d537a0732cefdcb8&id=6a1b9e3583&e=49a23e151b)

An Amazing Discovery

There is a saying of Yeshua HaNotzri from the “Gospel of the Hebrews” that has been quoted by Origen (ca. 185 – 254 CE) (Commentary on John 2:12; Homily on Jeremiah 15:4) and by Jerome (347 – 420 CE) (Commentary on Micah[commenting on Micah 7:6]; Commentary on Isaiah 11 [commenting on Isaiah 40:9];Commentary on Ezekiel [commenting on Ezekiel 16:13]) that translates into English from Greek in Origen as "Just now my Mother, the Holy Spirit (Breath), took me by one of my hairs and brought me to Tabor, the great mountain". The “Gospel of the Hebrews” is a non-canonical work associated with early Jewish followers of Yeshua HaNotzri, written in Hebrew originally (cf. Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3:7 - "Hebrew language and letters"; Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 4 [commenting on Isaiah 11:21] - "Hebrew speech"), but with fragments only preserved in Greek or Latin translations, as in Origen and Jerome.

The “Gospel of the Hebrews” has been associated with the Ebionites by Eusebius (263 – 339 CE) (Eccl. Hist. iii.27.4) and Jerome (On Matthew xii.13). The Ebionites, as known from hostile “Church Fathers” and from the apparently Fourth Century “Pseudo-Clementine” Homilies and Recognitions, which probably preserve some of their teachings (cf. Jeffrey J. Bütz, 2010, The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings That Passed from James the Just to the Founding Fathers and Keith Akers, 2000, The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity), appear to have believed that Yeshua HaNotzri is not God, but the True Prophet, in whom the Holy Spirit (also called the Spirit of the Christ) found in previous prophets ultimately has come to rest, and who lived and taught a life of pacifism, vegetarianism, and simplicity that could lead his followers to share in that Spirit and become “Christs” as well. The “Gospel of the Hebrews” is likely the same gospel in which Yeshua indicates having come to abolish animal sacrifice, and in which Yochanan the Baptizer eats cakes rather than insects and Yeshua refuses to eat the meat of the Pesach (cf. Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13:4-5; 30.16:4-5; 30.22:4). 

When the portion of the saying quoted above in English translation that says “my Mother, the Holy Spirit (Breath)” is expressed in the colloquial Hebrew of the Second Temple period, as preserved as a literary language by the Mishnah (usually called Mishnaic or Rabbinic Hebrew, as opposed to Biblical Hebrew), it can be “Imma Sheli Ruach HaQodesh (or HaQadosh)”. Now, the roshei teivot, or initial letters of the four Hebrew words, are aleph, shin, resh, heh. These letters spell “asherah”, which, if taken as the proper name “Asherah”, can be a reference to the “Feminine” aspect of God as known from the First Temple period (e.g. finds at Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Kom) and also through Kabbalah (Zohar I, 49a, and Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, Or Ne'erav, chelek zayn). In the Kabbalistic sources, "Asherah" is a name for the Shekhinah, which means happiness or bliss. So, in this case, Yeshua HaNotzri would not only be asserting the “Femininity” of the Holy Spirit (Breath) here, as his “Mother”, but tying “Her” directly to “Asherah” as Absolute Bliss. He also is affirming that, as Divine Breath, "Asherah" is an inherent aspect of God, not a separate deity or consort as was mistakenly believed by some in antiquity.

If the roshei teivot of “asherah” are instead taken as expressing not a proper name but a common noun, then what can be understood is a reference simply to happiness or bliss in general. Probably, one is meant to understand it both ways, as we shall see. 

The final Hebrew letters (sofei teivot) of each word in “Imma Sheli Ruach HaQodesh (or HaQadosh)” (aleph, yud, chet, shin) spell the words “ei chash”, which in Mishnaic Hebrew mean “without having pain” or “without feeling pain”. It is tempting to see a further import of this saying as being a teaching to avoid causing pain to any creature, which would be consistent with the vegetarian and anti-animal sacrifice message of the Ebionites and their “Gospel of the Hebrews”.

The remaining Hebrew letters in the phrase - mem, lamed, vav, qof, dalet - have a combined numerical value (40+30+6+100+4) of 180. This is very significant in that it represents 10 x 18. The number 18 is the value of the Hebrew word "chai" meaning life or living. Ten is a number representing totality or completeness in Biblical and Kabbalistic understanding - 10 commandments, 10 sefirot for example. So, 10 x 18 or 180 symbolizes the totality of living beings. 

One further item also is worth noting – the number of letters on the saying is 13, which equals echad or one in Hebrew. The oneness may be both that of the Divine Breath with God and also that of the continuity of the totality of living beings with the Divine.

Taken together, all of these above elements help us to comprehend this Hebrew saying as follows: there is an integral relationship between experiencing the “Mother” that is the "Feminine" Divine Breath in all living beings, the Shekhinah, the Infinite Freedom To, as perfectly one with God, the Holy One Blessed be He, the Infinite Freedom From, in Absolute Bliss, and not causing pain but only providing happiness to the totality of living beings. In addition, there can be a causal interpretation: by not causing pain and only giving happiness to the totality of living beings, understood as continuous with the Divine, one can have the bliss of experiencing God’s inherent Divine Breath as one’s “Mother”.