E
- Status
A
andrewagill
Guest
The speaker is a translator who is very sloppy with his or her pronouns. Here’s the verse in Greek (I can’t read Greek, but I do have significant supplementary notes, and here’s my source):
το πνευμα οπου θελει πνει και την φωνην αυτου ακουεις αλλ ουκ οιδας ποθεν ερχεται και που υπαγει ουτως εστιν πας ο γεγεννημενος εκ του πνευματος
An annotated version of the verse would look thus:
The(1) Spirit(2) breatheth where he (implied) will; and thou hearest his(3) (the (4)) voice(5), but thou knowest not whence he (implied) cometh, and whither he (implied) goeth: so is every (6) (the (7)) one that is born (8) of the(9) Spirit(10).
neuter: το (1-The), πνευμα (2-Spirit), αυτου* (3-his), του* (9-the), πνευματος (10-Spirit)
feminine: την (4-the), φωνην (5-voice)
masculine: αυτου* (3-his), πας (6-every), ο (7-the), γεγεννημενος (8-one that is born), του* (9-the)
(*) can be either masculine or neuter
In p66, there are two corrigenda for the words having genders here: γενημενος and πνευα are the original, but were corrected to conform to the text above. I do not believe that either are actual words.
Of particular note: The Spirit is referred to as neuter, but the voice of the Spirit is referred to as feminine. There’s not much here, and the fact that πνευμα is neuter shouldn’t have any more consequence than the fact that table is feminine in French. The fact that the definite articles agree is probably little more than a grammatical habit. Pronoun agreement strikes me as more significant, but only slightly so.
The fact that phônen was chosen rather than phthongos or phthegma (both also mean voice but are masculine and neuter, respectively) may be meaningless, but difficult to dismiss outright. Indeed, I’m not sure if those words are even in koine Greek.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
JPII said that OT Wisdom = “Chist.”
J
juliamajor
Guest
This red herring has come up before. HS has Feminine characteristics just like it has masculine characteristics. Being Pure spirit leaves the two without gender. God is often pictured in the OT as a mother.
To give divinity a gender like a human being is without logic.In trying to define the Divine in all it’s aspects is difficult at best and is better explained by mystics and theologians…
To be so certain of Our Diety’s gender is to connect with the pantheons of the past where every god could be defined, directed, manipulated…
the heart of God is what we a trying to define-but how do define what is beyond the ken of mortal minds, no matter how brilliant.? We discern God as through a mirror darkly.Is there any true way to completely understand God and the Trinity?.
We anthropomorphise not because He is human or thinks like a human or acts human.WE do it for our convenience, for our understanding is limited because we are limited by our flesh.We are cut from the Divine and can only interpret what has been given us via tradition and scripture.But it is still imperfect knowledge of a God we perceive with the eyes of mortality.
To give divinity a gender like a human being is without logic.In trying to define the Divine in all it’s aspects is difficult at best and is better explained by mystics and theologians…
To be so certain of Our Diety’s gender is to connect with the pantheons of the past where every god could be defined, directed, manipulated…
the heart of God is what we a trying to define-but how do define what is beyond the ken of mortal minds, no matter how brilliant.? We discern God as through a mirror darkly.Is there any true way to completely understand God and the Trinity?.
We anthropomorphise not because He is human or thinks like a human or acts human.WE do it for our convenience, for our understanding is limited because we are limited by our flesh.We are cut from the Divine and can only interpret what has been given us via tradition and scripture.But it is still imperfect knowledge of a God we perceive with the eyes of mortality.
M
Mark77
Guest
Julia,
Beautiful, exactly what i was thinking. As Papa Benedictus XVI teaches us;
“We are dealing here with the vast question as to how we can and cannot know God, how we are related to God and how we can lose him. **The arrogance that would make God an object and impose our laboratory conditions upon him is incapable of finding him. **For it already implies that we deny God as God by placing ourselves above him, by discarding the whole dimension of love, of interior listening; by no longer acknowledging as real anything but what we can experimentally test and grasp. To think like that is to make oneself God. And to do that is to abase not only God, but the world and oneself, too.”
“Jesus of Nazareth” Papa Benedictus XVI, (p. 37)
**When we try to describe God with our limited understanding, we are incapable of defining him. We are forced to try to limit the infinite so we can attempt to grasp a tiny piece of the perfection that is God with our limited and imperfect minds.
**
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
C
chatto
Guest
I’d heard someone refer to the Holy Spirit as ‘she’ before, and so I asked the Dominicans in Oxford what they made of it. The reply is by Fr. Richard Ounsworth O.P., who’s a scripture scholar. It’s no.14, the second one down:
godzdogz.op.org/labels/quodlibets.html
godzdogz.op.org/labels/quodlibets.html
C
catharina
Guest
I had the same thought.As improbable as it sounds, I think someone is mixing up Scott Hahn with Andrew Greeley.
Fr. Greeley made this a perennial point.
Of course, since his fall on ice in Chicago, he’s too disabled to preach again.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
A
andrewagill
Guest
I assume you mean Christ, but I’m going to need a citation for that. If Wisdom is Christ, and Wisdom is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, does that mean that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to give Jesus?
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Referring to the Holy Spirit as ‘HS’ and as ‘it’ is very offensive. Sacred infallible Tradition has always referred to God as He, and to each Person of the Trinity as He. Jesus used the pronoun ‘He’ when referring to the Father and the Spirit. The Catholic Faith as alwaye referred to God as He, and to the Father, Son, and Spirit each as He.
God is not ‘often pictured in the OT as a mother.’ While a variety of different figures are used to refer to God, He is always called He.
Also, the post above which claims that the voice of the Spirit is feminine is merely pointing out the gender of the word voice. Many languages give a grammatical gender to various words (such as table or chair) which has nothing to do with the gender of the person to whom the table or chair or voice belongs.
A
andrewagill
Guest
No, He didn’t. Look at Matt 10:20. He refers to the Spirit as neuter. Matt 12:31-32 again refers to the Spirit as neuter. Likewise in 22:43, 28:19, Mk 3:29, 12:36, 13:11, 11:13 (though one ms has a non-word in place of the pronoun), 12:10-12, 23:46 (possibly), Jn 1:33, Jn 3:5-8, 3:34, 4:23, 6:63, 14:17 (though p66 and a corrector of Codex Sinaitiucus have masculine pronouns in this verse).
Matt 12:28, Lk 4:18: Spirit
of God (m). Jn 4:24 says The(m) God(m) is Spirit. Jn 14:26 uses a masculine term for paraclete, but the rest is neuter. Likewise in 15:26, though I think there may be another masculine pronoun in that one.That’s almost entirely neuter, even in the pronouns.
If you have any evidence to support this statement, I’d like to hear it.
I’m not sure where God is referred to as motherly, and I would be suspicious of any such statement, so I’d like to see some evidence for that, as well.
I’d also like to point out that the following statement is pretty scandalous if the Church insists that God must be referred to as a masculine figure:
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
{10:20} Non enim vos estis qui loquimini, sed Spiritus Patris vestri, **qui **loquitur in vobis.
{10:20} For it is not you who will be speaking, but the Spirit of your Father, who will speak in you.
The word ‘qui’ is masculine, not neuter. Even if the word is neuter in Greek, that is merely due to the grammatical gender (or lack thereof) of the word ‘who’. Other posters on this topic are also pointing out grammar, not doctrine.
Jesus never referred to the Holy Spirit as She. He could easily have done so, if this were a truth about God, but He did not. The fact that certain words have a grammatical gender is not equivalent to Jesus teaching that the Holy Spirit is aptly referred to as feminine or neuter.
Similarly, Jesus could have appointed women as Apostles, if He wanted the Church to have women priests, but He did not.
“…no one is father as God is Father.”
All that is good in Creation, including masculinity and femininity, are from God who is the Source of all Goodness. But this does not imply that God is just as fittingly called He or She, nor that God has male and female characteristics.
Creation is like God, but God is not like His Creation. God is truly and absolutely simple, so that the good qualities found in Creation are not found in God in the same way, as qualities or characteristics. So God does not have characteristics or qualities at all. Everything that is true about God is His very Nature, and His Nature is absolutely simple.
God is fittingly called He, and all Three Persons are each fittingly called He, because God gave humanity a certain order, such that the Church would be led by ordained men, and such that a family would have the man as the head. God ordained that males would have certain roles of leadership not given to females. This relationship between male and female roles is a reflection of the relationship between God and Creation. And since God is the head and leader of all Creation, God is most fittingly called He, and not She.
Also Sacred Tradition has always called God, in all Three Persons, by male pronouns.
{10:20} For it is not you who will be speaking, but the Spirit of your Father, who will speak in you.
The word ‘qui’ is masculine, not neuter. Even if the word is neuter in Greek, that is merely due to the grammatical gender (or lack thereof) of the word ‘who’. Other posters on this topic are also pointing out grammar, not doctrine.
Jesus never referred to the Holy Spirit as She. He could easily have done so, if this were a truth about God, but He did not. The fact that certain words have a grammatical gender is not equivalent to Jesus teaching that the Holy Spirit is aptly referred to as feminine or neuter.
Similarly, Jesus could have appointed women as Apostles, if He wanted the Church to have women priests, but He did not.
“…no one is father as God is Father.”
All that is good in Creation, including masculinity and femininity, are from God who is the Source of all Goodness. But this does not imply that God is just as fittingly called He or She, nor that God has male and female characteristics.
Creation is like God, but God is not like His Creation. God is truly and absolutely simple, so that the good qualities found in Creation are not found in God in the same way, as qualities or characteristics. So God does not have characteristics or qualities at all. Everything that is true about God is His very Nature, and His Nature is absolutely simple.
God is fittingly called He, and all Three Persons are each fittingly called He, because God gave humanity a certain order, such that the Church would be led by ordained men, and such that a family would have the man as the head. God ordained that males would have certain roles of leadership not given to females. This relationship between male and female roles is a reflection of the relationship between God and Creation. And since God is the head and leader of all Creation, God is most fittingly called He, and not She.
Also Sacred Tradition has always called God, in all Three Persons, by male pronouns.
B
brb2
Guest
Jesus taught how often God wished to have ‘taken Israel under wing as would a mother hen, but they would not allow’
Matthew 23:37 "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! "
A
andrewagill
Guest
That’s not Old Testament, which the person I had replied to said. It may be echoing something in the OT. Let me check.
It is.
το λαλουν is, more or less ``the who will speak.’’ I’m not sure if λαλουν has a gender, but το is neuter.
It’s worth pointing out at this point that we don’t know the actual words of Jesus, who may have been speaking Aramaic here. He certainly didn’t speak Latin, though I believe that the words in Greek correspond very closely to what He said if it were in Greek, and only slightly less closely if the evangelists had to translate it from Aramaic.
I’m ready to talk doctrine. I’ll ask you again, do you believe that the following statements are appropriate?
G
graceandglory
Guest
Andrewagill, I don’t have any problem with these statements, should we?
“Male and Female, He Created Them” in His own Image. Anything that He created that is good has their source in Him. He created them male and female and gave each attributes that pertain to the sexes. All those attributes as far as they are good, have their source in the Creator. Saying that God has some characteristics that we in our finite minds attribute to being feminine, just doesn’t shake orthodox Catholic belief in the Trinity.
H
HereticAmI
Guest
Ruach is a feminine noun. Also, the words, 'eloah [singular] and 'elohim [plural] are feminine. And the word for the Divine Presence, Shekhinah, is also feminine.
And if by some chance you have occasion to speak with Father Serpa, please tell him for me to stop speaking falsehood. More specifically, he wrote here in Nov of last year:
Scripture always refers to the Holy Spirit in the masculine.
That statement is false. You can also remind Father Serpa that in Hebrew the pronoun will match the noun in gender, and so if the noun is feminine, so will the pronoun be feminine. Father Serpa is so ignorant here that he fails to appreciate that the Holy Spirit is always referred to by use of the feminine in the Tanakh. And tell him further that I sometimes refer to God as “mom”, since the story goes that God conceived, gave birth to, and then nursed Israel. Sounds like a mom to me. And by the way, do you know Koine Greek? The neuter “it” in Greek does not imply the impersonal. The Koine Greek word for child is neuter, yet no one thought that a child was not a person.
Sorry, almost forgot. El Shaddai. In Hebrew, shad means breast. So God nurtures and suckles. And so no coincidence that God first reveals the name, El Shaddai, to Abraham when he speaks of multiplying Abraham’s descendants into a whole nation. See also Jacob’s blessing at Genesis 49:25.
Almost forgot again, but God did not establish patriarchy. Men did that all on their own. God then simply chose to work within the screwed up system we had created for ourselves. You might otherwise do well to consider the implication of Genesis 3:19-20. Male (adam) = death. Female (eve) = life.
A
andrewagill
Guest
Well, I’m sure to have no allies after this.
Both Eloah and Elohim are masculine, according to Strong’s Lexicon. Shekhinah is not used in the Hebrew Scriptures, apparently. It is used in the Talmud, but I don’t think too many Christians view that as inspired. (It’s still very enlightening to read, but not in any way Scripture)
Whoa!
Where’d you get that idea?
…Actually, nevermind. You seem to be right on this point. I was probably thinking of the Deuterocanonical books, which are not included in the modern Tanakh.
I thought El Shaddai was imported from another language.
I’m sorry, what do you mean to imply? That God created man as an instrument of destruction? Even if that were the case, the verses you cite don’t have anything to do with an explicit agency of death.
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
I’m not sure if the fact that words have gender in some languages mean anything theologically. I’m of the position that gender in words mean absolutely nothing: for example, hand in Latin and Italian is feminine, does it mean that the hand has feminine characteristics?
On the other hand, the Church has assigned masculine pronouns to refer to God in view of
(a) the revelation of God as a person (rather than a force, or animal, or something impersonal)
(b) that God revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not simply Father in relation to humanity, but Father in relation to the Son even before all ages. While in his divine nature, God is neither male nor female, he has identified himself as Father and Son, which are persons with a natural male gender.
(c) each person of the Blessed Trinity is consubstantial with the other. Thus, they should share the same pronoun.
(d) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Thus, even though spirit has no natural gender, the pronoun ‘it’ is not used in reference to the Holy Spirit, but the pronoun used for the Father.
For information, in some languages, Chinese for example, besides the masculine pronoun, a deity pronoun is also used in reference to God.
On the other hand, the Church has assigned masculine pronouns to refer to God in view of
(a) the revelation of God as a person (rather than a force, or animal, or something impersonal)
(b) that God revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not simply Father in relation to humanity, but Father in relation to the Son even before all ages. While in his divine nature, God is neither male nor female, he has identified himself as Father and Son, which are persons with a natural male gender.
(c) each person of the Blessed Trinity is consubstantial with the other. Thus, they should share the same pronoun.
(d) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Thus, even though spirit has no natural gender, the pronoun ‘it’ is not used in reference to the Holy Spirit, but the pronoun used for the Father.
For information, in some languages, Chinese for example, besides the masculine pronoun, a deity pronoun is also used in reference to God.
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
C
catharina
Guest
Excellent post, especially the bolded above.
Odd to note that some folks imagine they can “teach” the Church to the contrary.
Sort of like the “Catholics” who claim to be pro-choice.
HUH?
J
juliamajor
Guest
In the Targumim.
The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to “dwell” among men. Like Memra (= “word”; “logos”) and “Yeḳara” (i.e., “Kabod” = “glory”), the term was used by the Rabbis in place of “God” where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper (see Anthropomorphism). The word itself is taken from such passages as speak of God dwelling either in the Tabernacle or among the people of Israel (see Ex. xxv. 8, xxix. 45-46; Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; I Kings vi. 13; Ezek. xliii. 9; Zech. ii. 14 [A. V. 10]). Occasionally the name of God is spoken of as descending (Deut. xii. 11; xiv. 23; xvi. 6, 11; xxvi. 2; Neh. i. 9). It is especially said that God dwells in Jerusalem (Zech. viii. 3; Ps. cxxxv. 21; I Chron. xxiii. 25), on Mount Zion (Isa. viii. 18; Joel iv. [A. V. iii.] 17, 21; Ps. xv. 1, lxxiv. 2), and in the Temple itself (Ezek. xliii. 7). Allusion is made also to “him that dwelt in the bush” (Deut. xxxiii. 16, ); and it is said that “the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai” (Ex. xxiv. 16). The term “Shekinah,” which is Hebrew, whereas “Memra” and “Yeḳara” are Aramaic, took the place of the latter two in Talmudand Midrash, and thus absorbed the meaning which they have in the Targum, where they almost exclusively occur. Nevertheless the word “Shekinah” occurs most frequently in the Aramaic versions, since they were intended for the people and were actually read to them, and since precautions had therefore to be taken against possible misunderstandings in regard to the conception of God. The word “dwell” in the Hebrew text is accordingly rendered in the Targumim by the phrase “let the Shekinah rest” (e.g., Ex. xxv. 8; xxix. 45, 46; Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; Deut. xxxii. 10 [R. V. “he compassed him about”]; Ps. lxxiv. 2). Onḳelos translates “Elohim” in Gen. ix. 27 by “Shekinah”; and wherever the person, the dwelling, or the remoteness of God is mentioned, he paraphrases by the same word (Num. xiv. 14, 42; xvi. 3; xxxv. 34; Deut. i. 42, iii. 24, iv. 39, vi. 15, vii. 21, xxiii. 16, xxxi. 17); so too, wherever the Name occurs, he substitutes for it the term “Shekinah” (Deut. xii. 5, 11, 21), and “presence” or “face” is translated the same way (Ex. xxxiii. 14-15; Num. vi. 25; Deut. xxxi. 17-18; see Maybaum, “Anthropomorphien,” etc., pp. 52-54). Targ. pseudo-Jonathan and Yerushalmi adopt a like system, as in Ps. xvi. 8, lxxxix. 47, Lam. ii. 19, and Cant. vi. 1 (ib. pp. 64 et seq.). Where the text states that God dwells in the Temple above the cherubim (as in Hab. ii. 20; I Sam. iv. 4; II Sam. vi. 2; I Kings viii. 12, 13; xiv. 21; Ps. lxxiv. 2), or that God has been seen (Isa. vi. 6 et seq.; Ex. iii. 6; Ezek. i. 1; Lev. ix. 4), the Yerushalmi has “Shekinah”; and even where it describes God as abiding in heaven, the same word is used (Isa. xxxiii. 5; Deut. iii. 24, iv. 39). This statement holds true also of allusions to His remoteness or to the hiding of His face (Hos. v. 6; Isa. viii. 17, xlv. 15; Hastings, “Dict. Bible,” iv. 488b). The Temple is called the “house of the Shekinah” (Targ. Onḳ. to Deut. xii. 5; Ps. xlix. 15, cviii. 8); and the term likewise occurs in connection with “glory” (“yeḳara”; Ruth ii. 12; Cant. iii. 6, iv. 6, v. 6; Ps. xliv. 25, lxviii. 19, cxv. 16; Jer. xix. 18) and with “holiness” (Cant. i. 10, ii. 2, iii. 2, vi. 1; Ps. lxxiv. 12, lxxxvi. 3).
In the Apocrypha and New Testament.
Since the Shekinah is light, those passages of the Apocrypha and New Testament which mention radiance, and in which the Greek text reads δόξα, refer to the Shekinah, there being no other Greek equivalent for the word. Thus, according to Luke ii. 9, “the glory of the Lord δόζα Ḳυρίου] shone round about them” (comp. II Peter i. 17; Eph. i. 6; II Cor. iv. 6); and it is supposed that in John i. 14 and Rev. xxi. 3 the words σκηνοῦν and σκηνή were expressly selected as implying the Shekinah. The idea that God dwells in man and that man is His temple (e.g., Col. ii. 9; II Cor. vi. 16; John xiv. 23) is merely a more realistic conception of the resting of the Shekinah on man.
From the Jewish encyclopedia
The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to “dwell” among men. Like Memra (= “word”; “logos”) and “Yeḳara” (i.e., “Kabod” = “glory”), the term was used by the Rabbis in place of “God” where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper (see Anthropomorphism). The word itself is taken from such passages as speak of God dwelling either in the Tabernacle or among the people of Israel (see Ex. xxv. 8, xxix. 45-46; Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; I Kings vi. 13; Ezek. xliii. 9; Zech. ii. 14 [A. V. 10]). Occasionally the name of God is spoken of as descending (Deut. xii. 11; xiv. 23; xvi. 6, 11; xxvi. 2; Neh. i. 9). It is especially said that God dwells in Jerusalem (Zech. viii. 3; Ps. cxxxv. 21; I Chron. xxiii. 25), on Mount Zion (Isa. viii. 18; Joel iv. [A. V. iii.] 17, 21; Ps. xv. 1, lxxiv. 2), and in the Temple itself (Ezek. xliii. 7). Allusion is made also to “him that dwelt in the bush” (Deut. xxxiii. 16, ); and it is said that “the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai” (Ex. xxiv. 16). The term “Shekinah,” which is Hebrew, whereas “Memra” and “Yeḳara” are Aramaic, took the place of the latter two in Talmudand Midrash, and thus absorbed the meaning which they have in the Targum, where they almost exclusively occur. Nevertheless the word “Shekinah” occurs most frequently in the Aramaic versions, since they were intended for the people and were actually read to them, and since precautions had therefore to be taken against possible misunderstandings in regard to the conception of God. The word “dwell” in the Hebrew text is accordingly rendered in the Targumim by the phrase “let the Shekinah rest” (e.g., Ex. xxv. 8; xxix. 45, 46; Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; Deut. xxxii. 10 [R. V. “he compassed him about”]; Ps. lxxiv. 2). Onḳelos translates “Elohim” in Gen. ix. 27 by “Shekinah”; and wherever the person, the dwelling, or the remoteness of God is mentioned, he paraphrases by the same word (Num. xiv. 14, 42; xvi. 3; xxxv. 34; Deut. i. 42, iii. 24, iv. 39, vi. 15, vii. 21, xxiii. 16, xxxi. 17); so too, wherever the Name occurs, he substitutes for it the term “Shekinah” (Deut. xii. 5, 11, 21), and “presence” or “face” is translated the same way (Ex. xxxiii. 14-15; Num. vi. 25; Deut. xxxi. 17-18; see Maybaum, “Anthropomorphien,” etc., pp. 52-54). Targ. pseudo-Jonathan and Yerushalmi adopt a like system, as in Ps. xvi. 8, lxxxix. 47, Lam. ii. 19, and Cant. vi. 1 (ib. pp. 64 et seq.). Where the text states that God dwells in the Temple above the cherubim (as in Hab. ii. 20; I Sam. iv. 4; II Sam. vi. 2; I Kings viii. 12, 13; xiv. 21; Ps. lxxiv. 2), or that God has been seen (Isa. vi. 6 et seq.; Ex. iii. 6; Ezek. i. 1; Lev. ix. 4), the Yerushalmi has “Shekinah”; and even where it describes God as abiding in heaven, the same word is used (Isa. xxxiii. 5; Deut. iii. 24, iv. 39). This statement holds true also of allusions to His remoteness or to the hiding of His face (Hos. v. 6; Isa. viii. 17, xlv. 15; Hastings, “Dict. Bible,” iv. 488b). The Temple is called the “house of the Shekinah” (Targ. Onḳ. to Deut. xii. 5; Ps. xlix. 15, cviii. 8); and the term likewise occurs in connection with “glory” (“yeḳara”; Ruth ii. 12; Cant. iii. 6, iv. 6, v. 6; Ps. xliv. 25, lxviii. 19, cxv. 16; Jer. xix. 18) and with “holiness” (Cant. i. 10, ii. 2, iii. 2, vi. 1; Ps. lxxiv. 12, lxxxvi. 3).
In the Apocrypha and New Testament.
Since the Shekinah is light, those passages of the Apocrypha and New Testament which mention radiance, and in which the Greek text reads δόξα, refer to the Shekinah, there being no other Greek equivalent for the word. Thus, according to Luke ii. 9, “the glory of the Lord δόζα Ḳυρίου] shone round about them” (comp. II Peter i. 17; Eph. i. 6; II Cor. iv. 6); and it is supposed that in John i. 14 and Rev. xxi. 3 the words σκηνοῦν and σκηνή were expressly selected as implying the Shekinah. The idea that God dwells in man and that man is His temple (e.g., Col. ii. 9; II Cor. vi. 16; John xiv. 23) is merely a more realistic conception of the resting of the Shekinah on man.
From the Jewish encyclopedia
- Status