Mulling over the evidence

Genesis 1 teaches us first, that our Creator God is plural in his unity (1:26, cf. 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8). Then, secondly, that he is also diverse in his unity. This conclusion is reached by recognition that man, who is created potentially in his image and likeness, is male and female.

Preliminary Points

First, it is important to recognise that the Greek conception of God as remote, static, utterly transcendent, and rigidly immutable is false. The Jewish (or biblical) view is that God is both immanent and transcendent; he is also dynamic, and performs signs and wonders in creation and redemption.

Second, the archetypal immanent (ontological or essential) Trinity of Creator, Word and Spirit, somewhat recondite in the OT (and in John 1, for example) existed self-sufficiently and in a relationship of mutual love (cf. John 17:24; 3:35) before the foundation of the world. It is this God, motivated by love, who freely planned the adoption of children (Eph. 1:3-6, cf. 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2) made in his image (Gen. 1:26). Since the children are male and female, I conclude that God is too (cf. Ex. 25:40).

The Implementation of the Plan

Since God could not reproduce himself without denying himself – in any case, the immanent Trinity was sexless and hence sterile – he had to take on appropriate roles. Thus, the Creator was appointed Father, the Word his Son, and by inference the Holy Spirit Mother, to form what we know as the economic Trinity (Psa. 2:7; 2 Sam. 7:14; Heb. 1:5, 5:5). (It is worthy of note that the economic Trinity, otherwise absent in the Old Testament, is anticipated in Genesis 1 and Psalm 2:7 for example.)

The question is: Can this view be adequately supported by the rest of Scripture?

First, in John 14:17, there seems to be some question as to whether the Helper / Comforter / Counsellor is to be referred to as ‘it’ (Gk) or ‘him’ as usually translated. The ‘him’ is surely to be preferred if the reference is to a person. Unsurprisingly, from that point on, ‘he’ or ‘him’ is used. The problem is that this seems to make the Helper an interloper or rival of God. On the other hand, if ‘he’ is really a ‘she’, as suggested by the human image of male (Adam) and female (Eve), the problem disappears.

Let’s follow the evidence…

The Character of God the Father

Throughout the NT, God the Father is an authoritative figure. In common parlance, he calls all the shots. He is to be feared as the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent one Creator God. Even Jesus who stresses his love, nonetheless warns that he is to be feared (Mt. 10:28, cf Psa. 76, Isa 8:13). Fear is the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 1:7, Job 28:28) and the Psalmist prays that God will put man in fear (9:20) so that earthly men may strike terror no more (Ps. 10:18). Holiness is completed in the fear of God, and without it, we shall not see God (Heb. 12:14 cf. v.10). See also, for example, Acts 10:35; 13:26; 1 Pet. 1:17, 2:17; Rev. 14:6, and so forth. Even our salvation is to be worked out in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12). God is our judge and his justice must prevail (Gen. 18:25; Rom. 3:5 f cf. 3 Tim. 4:11). Life is a test lived in face of the law (Ex. 15:25 f.; Dt. 8:2,16) and leads to judgement (1 Cor. 4:5) on the last day which cannot be avoided (1 Chron. 29:14; Heb. 9:27). The judgement scenes that appear in the NT are intended to strike fear into our hearts (Mt. 25; Rev. 20) and so prompt us to seek salvation.

God the Father is also presented as a hard taskmaster (Mt. 25:24) and a strict disciplinarian (Heb. 12:3-11) or school master (Gal. 3:23 KJV) who operates through the law (cf. also Gal. 4:1 f.).

However, in his fatherly love, he sends the Holy Spirit to be our Helper or Comforter, who appears to be of a somewhat different disposition.

The Character of the Helper Holy Spirit – The Female Factor

According to Proverbs 6:20, (cf 1:8), a father commands and disciplines, a mother teaches.

If God the Father can be angered and ever ready to reveal his wrath (Rom. 1:18; Mt. 22:7; 2 Pet. 3:7), the Holy Spirit can be grieved (Eph. 4:30, quenched 1 Thess. 5:19). (This would appear to be true even in Genesis 6:5 f., where the persons of the Lord are not distinguished). Expression of grief is notably a feature in a woman’s make up.

Throughout Scripture women are the main helpers / comforters. Eve was Adam’s helper, Sarah was Abraham’s helper, Rebekah was Isaac’s helper after his mother’s death (Gen. 24:67). Whereas the church walked in the fear of the Lord, it did so also in the comfort of the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:31). Especially in 2 Corinthians 7, comfort and grief go together and Paul’s reference to the God of all comfort (2 Cor. 1:3) immediately brings to mind the Holy Spirit, referred to at the end of the chapter as a seal (1:22) for our protection (cf. Rev. 7:2). A pleasant picture of a woman who is the ideal among the many referred to in Scripture (e.g. Mark 15:40 f.) is that depicted in Proverbs 31.

Though it is said believers are the children of God, and that God is our Father (e.g. John 1:12), it is significantly stated that we are born of the Spirit just as we are born physically of woman (John 3:6). It is the Spirit who gives life (2 Cor. 3:6; John 6:63) and is the promise (Eph. 1:13 f.) and guarantee of life (2 Cor. 1:22; Rev. 7:20). While it may be thought in light of John 17:3 (cf. 1 Tim, 1:2, etc.) that the Spirit is unnecessary, rather that simply understood, we are told in 1 John 5:12 that if we have the Son, we have the Father too. But it is easily forgotten that we also have the Spirit, and if we haven’t, we don’t belong (Rom. 8:9). It is our possession of the Spirit who proceeds from the Father who bears witness about the Son (1 John 5), and it is the Spirit of whom we are born again who tells us that we are children (Romans 8:14), heirs and fellow heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:16 f.).

Then it is important to consider the fruit of the spirit. For example, the list Paul provides in Galatians 5:22 are all typically, if not exclusively, female virtues. And again, there is the Holy Spirit’s intercession on behalf of the saints mentioned in Romans 8:26-27 (On Mariolatry, see below). Who better than the Helper / Comforter who relates directly to God the Father as described in 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 to perform this function. The intimacy here is reminiscent of a wife’s relationship with her husband. This in turn reminds us of Esther who freely and boldly approached the unapproachable King Ahasuerus in the OT and prevailed. With this background we can easily appreciate both the kindness and severity of God (Rom. 11:22, cf. Acts 9:31; 1 Pet. 1:17).

Yet another consideration is that like a woman or wife, the Helper has no independent personal authority (John 16:13, cf. 2:3 f.), but responds positively to the promptings of both Father and Son.

Of course, much more could be said in support of my contention that the Helper Holy Spirit is female in gender, but before seeking to provide a solution to what is an obvious problem, it is worthwhile noting some miscellaneous evidence.

Miscellaneous Evidence (NB. Acts 9:31; 1 Thes. 2:16ff)

The Holy Spirit is like a dove (cf. Mt. 3:16; 10:16) and presumably feminine.

Assuming the correspondence and symmetry between the two parts of John 3:6, we are born first of physical woman, and then of spiritual ‘woman’. The Helper is the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17; 15:26) who knows the Father (1 Cor. 2:10 ff.) but is unknown by the unregenerate. It is the Helper precisely who is a teacher, who inspired the prophets (1 Pet. 1:10; 2 Pet. 1:21) including the prophet Jesus, who was born again of her in order to fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15) on the one hand, and to serve the Father as the prophet predicted by Moses (Dt. 18:15-22; John 1:21, 25; Acts 3:22; 7:37) on the other. Like Eve who stemmed from Adam (cf. Gen. 2:21-23), she proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). Just as fleshly physical man is born of woman, so now we are born again of the Spirit (cf. John 3:6 f.; 1 Cor. 11).

It is the Spirit of Truth who enlightens us (1 Cor. 2:13), and who can be outraged and render us guilty of an unpardonable sin more serious than rejection of the Son, and attract the vengeance of God the Father (Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31). It is better not to have known the truth than to reject it deliberately – a much worse situation (cf. 2 Pet. 2:20-22).

If heavenly paternity is archetypal and paradigmatic (Eph. 3:14f), it is difficult not to infer that maternity is too (cf. Ex. 25:40). If the Word becomes a Son (John 1) he must have a Mother. There is only one candidate, that is, the Holy Spirit. This seems to be implied by Matthew 1:18, 20, and Luke 1:35. Though not the eternal Son of church tradition, the Word became (was appointed, Heb. 1:2, 5; 5:5a) before he was born of Mary as Jesus. The Apostles’ Creed tells us that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit implying that he as Son was transferred to the womb of Mary to be incarnated (cf. Luke 1:35).

While it may be thought in light of John 17:3 (cf. Matt. 28:19) that the Spirit is unnecessary, rather than simply understood, we are told in 1 John 5:12 that if we have the Son we have the Father too. But it is easily forgotten that we also have the Spirit, and if we haven’t, we don’t belong (Rom. 8:9). It is our possession of the Spirit who proceeds from the Father who bears witness about the Son (1 John 5), and it is the Spirit of whom we are born again who tells us that we are children, heirs and fellow heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:14ff.).

Then it is important to consider the fruit of the Spirit. For example, the list Paul provides in Galations 5:22 are all typically, if not exclusively, female virtues. And again, there is the Holy Spirit’s intercession on behalf of the saints mentioned in Romans 8:26f. Who better than the Helper / Comforter who relates directly to God the Father as described in 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 to perform this function. The intimacy here borders on identity, and is reminiscent of a wife’s relationship with her husband. This also reminds us again of Esther who freely and boldly approached the unapproachable King Ahasuerus in the OT and prevailed. With this background we can easily appreciate the kindness and severity of God (Rom. 11:22, cf. Acts 9:31; 1 Pet. 1:17).

Matthew 13:33 is significant for two reasons: One, Jesus refers to a woman, and two, she uses good leaven which is normally bad (cf. Matt. 16:6). Who better than the helper Holy Spirit who is the spirit of truth (John 14:17; 15:26). On the other hand, if Jesus has Genesis 18:6 in mind, then we need to recall the fact that Sarah is regarded as the mother of the new Jerusalem, whose children are all ultimately regenerate and free (Heb. 6:1; 10:14; 11:40; 12:23). She permeates the heavenly city with her light (Rev. 21:11, 21).

Also in the book of Revelation, the counterpart of the economic Trinity is the evil trio of the the dragon (who seeks to ape God) and the two beasts. So far as the present subject is concerned, the second beast is the false prophet, a whore in fact, that is, a woman and in that regard comparable with the Holy Spirit (cf. Rev. 19:20).

Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables (Mt. 13:34); to believers he spoke in similitudes or figurative speech (John 16:25, 29), clearly avoiding direct speech in order to hide his true or complete meaning. He is not lying, but applying 1 Corinthians 13, i.e. allowing time for growth.

History

History, not simply the Old Testament, shows that the Helper Spirit is like a woman, inconspicuous, relatively insignificant, and lacking authority and prominent profile. One wonders why it has taken 2,000 years of Christianity and the rise of the charismatic movement to bring her to the fore. The answer is doubtless that might is right especially in primitive patriarchal societies, and women being the weaker vessels have been down-trodden. In this the Jews were not alone: we have only to recall Greek, Roman and later Muslim societies where men have dominated and women were made subservient. It is not simply a matter of function and headship, but of attitude based largely in misunderstanding of the character of God. While it may be true that primitive and classical societies had goddesses, even they were subject to male gods like Jupiter or Zeus. And Christian societies have put women in subjection until comparatively recently. Had they appreciated that the Holy Spirit was female in gender, they might have adopted a different attitude.

In John 14:18, when he goes away, Jesus says he will not leave them as orphans. Orphans are children without parents. In John 17:12, Jesus says that while he was with them, he has kept them himself, now once he has been glorified, they as regenerate will have both Father and Mother (Luke 1:35). This is further borne out by John 3:6 where Jesus says that which is born of the flesh is flesh (woman), and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. If both parts of this saying are symmetrical, then the Spirit must be feminine.

This leads to a consideration of Roman Catholic Mariolatry, for which there is no biblical support whatsoever. Furthermore, worship of Mary is impossible since she is a creature who needs a saviour and an intercessor herself. The assumption must be that early in Church history there was a failure to understand the role of the Spirit as like that of a woman interceding on behalf of her children. It is important to note that it is the Holy Spirit who, along with Jesus, serves as intercessor (Rom. 8:27).

A Problem

While to refer to the Helper as ‘he’ (‘him’) rather than ‘she’ (‘her’) may seem illogical and somewhat contrary to the evidence provided cursorily above, it remains a stubborn fact that while the impersonality of the Helper / Comforter is apparently denied (cf. John 14:17), even Jesus refers to her as ‘him’. Perhaps, however, I have made a mistake and am guilty of contradicting Scripture and implicitly rejecting its inspiration? So what else can be said?

Precedents

To answer this, it is important first to consider possible precedents where the plain teaching of Scripture seems to be overridden. For instance, in Matthew 12:1-8, Jesus points out that David, his companions and the priests (cf. John 7:22f.) profaned the law with impunity when they had just cause. Again in Matthew 19, Jesus claims that Moses allowed divorce, even though Scripture forbade it (see also Luke 14:5f).

It is at this point that John 16 assumes special importance, for if the Helper really is female in gender, Jesus not only knows it as is suggested by John 3:6, but appears to ignore it. And the reason for this is not simply the hardness of heart of his hearers, but their inability to bear it in their immaturity (John 16:12, cf. Mark 4:33; 1 Cor. 3:2; Heb, 5:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:2. Note also Hebrews 5:11 and 2 Pet. 3:15f.). Jesus, of course, is concerned not to put an unnecessary stumbling block in the way of ‘little ones’ (Mk. 9:42), not children, but grown ups with limited intelligence, and / or education (note Mk. 10:13). To attribute femininity to God in the context of their fanatical commitment to monotheism (Dt. 6:4, Mark 12:29) and masculinity would have given unnecessary offence, all the more so in view of the wickedness of queens in Israelite history like Jezebel and Athalia, and the abominable worship of the queen of heaven referred to in Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17 which contributed to the exile. After all, the deity of Jesus himself and the doctrine of the Trinity were to cause almost endless debate in years to follow (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26-31; 2:6-8). The theological and Christological wrangling of the early church can hardly be ignored by any who care to read history. In other words, like Moses, Jesus had good reason to refer to the Helper as male (inclusively?), even though she was really female in gender. It may be added that Jesus was aware of the perfection, that is, the maturation or growth of humankind in a way that his contemporaries were not (cf. Mk. 4:26-34). Even as late as 1859 and Darwin, the churches tended to regard man as a flat uniformity who was created in the complete image of God, and not subject to development or evolution. With the persistence of Augustinian theology and especially worldview, the churches even today in 2023 still adhere to similar views. They tend to promote especially by creed and tradition movement from spirit (maturity) to flesh (immaturity) as described by Paul in Galations 3:1-5 rather than from flesh to spirit (1 Cor. 15:46). It is not without good reason that growth and progressive sanctification are stressed especially by Paul (e.g. Eph 4. Note also Luke 2:40, 52; Mt. 5:48; 19:21; Heb. 1:3, 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). Indeed, proper understanding of covenant theology (on which see my Covenant Theology in Brief) opens our eyes to the fact that we progress from slavery, through servanthood (especially if we are Jews) to sonship as Christians (Gal. 4:1-7, cf. 1 Cor. 13:11-13). In other words, Jesus and the apostles had ample justification for presenting the Helper Holy Spirit as male in gender, at least initially, with the intention of revealing the whole truth at a later date when their audience had matured under the influence of the Spirit, who was shortly to be given (cf. John 16:12f., 25). After all, Moses and David had overridden the letter of the law with divine approval in their days (Mt. 12 & 19), why would not Jesus in his day override the obvious logical truth and make concessions in the interests of the well-being of his audience? Did not he clearly teach the need to care for “little ones” who believe in him (Mt. 18:1-6, cf. 1 Cor. 8:7-13). Love and understanding are of more importance than knowledge (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 13:8-9) as good parents usually realise. Forcing children or new converts from a primitive religion to adopt Christian standards too quickly can do enormous damage, as modern missionaries now know (Remember the persecution of the Jews, the Inquisition, etc.). Not without reason did Paul say that he tried to please everyone in everything (1 Cor. 10:33).

But there is perhaps another reason why understanding (revelation?) of the gender of the Helper Holy Spirit was delayed (John 7:39; cf. Acts 8:16; 19:2), and that is that Jesus in John 17 stresses that the divine intention is that man and God should become one (John 17:11,22f.). (Compare the delay in old testament times of the secret regarding Gentile salvation, Eph. 3:6). In order to do so, however, the plan formed before the foundation of the earth necessitated a change in the immanent Trinity. Why? Because it was unique, sexless and sterile (cf. Luke 20:34f), as we saw above. But by adopting different roles and dividing their labour as the economic Trinity, it became possible for man to be created, to proliferate and become the children of God (Eph. 1:4f.; Rom. 8:22f.). First, the Word who became Son (Ps. 2:7; Heb. 1:5, 5:5) and took on flesh (John 1; Phil. 2) atoned for the sins of mankind. Second, having justified us (Rom. 6:18), he then gave us his Spirit to regenerate and sanctify us, in preparation for eternal life (Rom. 6:22f., cf. 1 Pet. 1:9). Since temporal flesh (dust) could not receive eternal life (1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 4:30) this was vitally necessary. Why? Because Jesus left heaven to seek a bride who of course had to have the same nature (attributes) as himself. Like had to marry like (John 3:6). But just as flesh marries flesh, so spirit marries spirit (1 Cor 6:17, cf. Heb. 2:11-13), and this opens the way to heaven, into the presence of God. Jesus, who is a consuming fire (2 Thess. 1:8; cf. Isa. 33:14, etc.) himself, was already God (the Word) who had temporarily taken on flesh, and having kept the law been born again, and joined to his fellow (believers) in spiritual union. Since he achieved perfection (Heb. 1:3, etc,) and sat down at the right hand of God, he was able to take his bride into the household of God (John 14:2). Without the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit, all this would have been impossible. She who gave second birth (John 3:7) was indeed the necessary Helper.

This is surely the profound mystery (secret) that Paul is referring to in Ephesians 5:22-32. Man’s problem had been that he couldn’t keep the law that promised life (Rom, 7:10), Jesus did keep the law and was able to send the Spirit to regenerate believers once he was glorified (John 14:16, 26; 15:26 etc.) and so save those who believed in him who was both God (by identity) and man by choice. He had freely left his Father and Mother in heaven in order to become one spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45) with his disciples (proteges) who formed his bride. Thus, just as man and woman formed one flesh on earth, so as born again, they form one spirit in heaven (1 Cor. 6:17). As such, they enter the very presence of the Father (Col. 1:22, 28; Jude 24, cf. 2 Cor. 11:2). Today after being led by the Spirit for 2,000 years, believers should be mature enough to accept that the Helper Holy Spirit is to be regarded as female in gender, and to ignore this is not only to grieve the Spirit, but to resist the divine intention. It is to refuse to grow up and to become the perfect (complete) man like Jesus (Rom, 8:29; Eph. 4:11-16; Heb, 1:3). If we do, however, respond positively to the leading and promptings of the Spirit, we like Jesus will become one with God (John 17:22). By marrying him we the bride have him, the bridegroom, as our husband who is already God by nature. Thus to be united with him is to be united with God the Father (John 17:11, 20-24), his children in fact by adoption. In this way the plan formed before the foundation of the world achieves its fulfilment (Eph. 1:4-6). So the mystery (secret) of the will of God (Eph. 1:9) is thus accomplished by marriage (Eph. 5:32). The commoner or outsider, having been baptised in the one name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Mother) is adopted as an integral member of the family of God (cf. Eph 3:14-19) and has found a place in God’s house (John 14:2f). (Cf. The commoner (Camilla) who having married into royalty (King Charles III) has become one with the royal family and as Queen (Consort) sits crowned in glory on the throne of the King, 1 Pet. 5:4; cf. Rev. 3:21). (Note the Bride is also depicted as a city, the new Jerusalem, Rev. 21:9-11. Not without reason, there are many mansions in God’s house (city), John 14:2.).

Finally, it should be mentioned that in heaven, there is no sexual differentiation at all (Luke 20:34-36; Gal. 3:28), we shall be sexless like angels. But the eternal God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).

Conclusion

What then, in sum, is my contention?

Before the foundation of the world, the immanent Trinity in their love, planned to adopt children, express their love, and glorify themselves in their salvation (Eph. 1:3-14).
Since the Creator God, the Word and the Holy Spirit being genderless could not reproduce themselves, they necessarily changed, took on different roles, thereby dividing their labour. The Creator God appointed himself Father, the Word Son and by implication, the Holy Spirit Mother (Heb. 1:5; 5:5)
After creation, including man, eternal life was promised if the commandment (law) was kept.
Since man couldn’t keep the law, the Word took on flesh (underwent incarnation) and did it on man’s behalf. By so doing he Jesus inherited life as man (cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). This was made a covenant gift to all who believe in him (Mt. 26:26-30; cf. Luke 22:19f) achieved by the purification of sins (cf. 1 John 2:2; Heb. 1:3) and the gift of righteousness (Phil. 3:9, etc.)
Their justification by faith, paved the way for sinners to receive the Holy Spirit and be born again.
Regeneration then became the first step in their sanctification which culminated in the perfection of eternal life (Rom. 6:22; Heb. 12:23).
Yet one more step was necessary for them to achieve union with God (John 17:23f.) and to fulfil the ancient plan. This was achieved by marriage, the profound mystery referred to by Paul in Ephesians 5:32 (cf. Mt. 22:1-10; 25:1-10; Rev. 19:1-9). Thus God and man are forever made one in eternal union (cf. 1 Cor. 6:17; 15:28).

So man as such will live forever in the presence of God (Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:3; Lev. 26:11; Ps. 61:4; 91:1f) in the celestial city watered by the river of life (Ps. 1:3; Rev. 22:1f. 22:14). Only the wicked will be left outside (Rev. 21:8; 22:15).

Concluding Comment

As I sought to show in my article The Fatherhood of God, the impetus of salvation comes from God. As fatherhood or parenthood is theomorphic and not anthropomorphic, so is marriage. From Genesis 1 we may learn that the divine intention has always been the family union of man and God (Note especially John 17). This has already been achieved in principle and will be completed at the end of the age, when a perfected bride will be presented to her already perfected husband (Heb. 1:3; 2 Cor. 11:2; cf. Rev. 14:4) all to the glory of God (Eph. 3:14-21).

Gloria Soli Deo

Additional Note

It has been an error on my part over the years to think that Jesus only became a son at his incarnation (Heb. 1:2, 5, etc.).