The Holy Spirit in the Tanakh

Is the Ruach Gender Specific ? Father , Son , Ruach – Echad = Miltha

I find this very interesting when looking at the word ” Miltha ”
In the first verse of the Gospel of John, the word translated as ‘Word’ comes from the Aramaic ‘Miltha’.

In the Beginning was the Miltha.

” Miltha ” does mean “word”, however …., its full depth cannot be adequately translated. As such, miltha is the first of what will be many Aramaic theological terms that can only be discussed through explanation and metaphor, as opposed to being given a strict dictionary definition. For now though, “Word” will do fine as a launching point while we sift through the poetic and grammatical challenges of the Sholiach/Apsotle Yochanan’s first statement. Put simply, every word in Hebrew, or Aramaic must be either masculine, or feminine, and this particular phrase reflects something very unusual that will become clear momentarily.
AYT HWT TAMIN ANTATHA DAYAT HWT LEH ROKHA DKORHHANA
There was a woman who was there who had a ruach of infirmity.
Luke 13:11
This is proper Aramaic grammar, with the female noun of woman (antatha) being joined with a female verb for was (hwt). So when it comes to nouns being linked to verbs, the gender for both parts of the sentence must match. Of course, this same principle works for the masculine gender as well:
HWA YOCHANAN BMADBARA MAIMAD WMKRAZ
Was Yochanan in the wilderness baptizing and preaching.
Mark 1:4 Again, the nouns and verbs match up, with the male noun (Yochanan) linked to the male verb form of was (hwa).
However, if we look again at the verse we are studying, an amazing pattern emerges as AYTOHI HWA MILTHA, or two masculine verbs linked to a feminine noun!
Therefore, Yochanan is breaking the rules of Aramaic grammar on purpose to make an extremely important poetic and spiritual point. Since there is no neuter like Greek (it, one) in either Hebrew, or Aramaic, there was no “official” way that Yochanan could express the totality of the gender of spirits from YHWH that rest on the Moshiach (Isaiah 11:1-3). Furthermore, the same is true of the fact that all aspects of Elohim were supposed to dwell bodily within him, as this verse from the apostle Paul shows.
Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible Elohim, the First-born of all creation.
Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible; whether thrones, or lordships, or rulers, or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and all things have subsisted in Him.
Col 1:18 And He is the Head of the body, the assembly, who is the Beginning, the First-born out of the dead, that He be preeminent in all things;
Col 1:19 because all the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him,
Subsequently, if Yochanan follows proper Aramaic grammar to depict either an all-male, or all-female construct, he will then leave out half of the powers and attributes that are supposed to dwell in Moshiach. As a result, Yochanan’s ultimate solution to this dilemma had to involve an “illegal” device that, while awkward, nonetheless represents the only way to communicate this full unity by mating a female noun with two male verbs.
Another key reason why Yochanan chose miltha has to do with its unique root, which is amply demonstrated when Yeshua says:
Mat 13:35 so that was fulfilled that spoken through the prophet, saying: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will speak out things hidden from the foundation of the world.” Psa. 78:2
The near direct quotation of Psalm 78:2 in the above verse closely mirrors what is in the Masoretic Text, which uses the word mashal, for “parable”. However, a very good Aramaic equivalent of mashal is mithleh, and this is the word Y’shua uses in the Peshitta version of Matthew. So, as should be apparent by now, miltha and mithleh are nearly identical words derived from the same root, and where Matthew says secrets from before the creation of the world will be revealed by the Moshiach, Yochanan is making the exact same point here.
A last consideration in the mind of Yochanan must have been the depth of meaning in the word itself. Put simply, miltha is a term that has no direct equivalent in any other language, including Hebrew. Like the Tanakh usage of davar in Psalm 33:6 and the frequent targumic allusion to memra to avoid the anthropomorphizing of Deity, miltha has great power as a particle of divine speech. However, miltha has meanings not even hinted at in these other terms, and certainly not in the Greek logos. Over the centuries, miltha has been rendered as “force”, “manifestation”, “emanation”, “substance” as well as “word”, and even all these put together still don’t come close to approaching its totality, which is why its there in the first verse of this esoteric book!
Surely though it was also this very diversity that Yochanan wanted, since only a nearly infinite-meaning word can attempt to do justice to that which is infinite in the first place.”