The Jew as a piece of God? What do the scriptures say?

The only reason Israel was a elected by God was because God wanted it that way. The traditional Jewish view, in contrast, is that God’s elect is a “piece of God above,” and consequently has a higher soul than the non-Jew. The Hindu also believes in this “piece of God” concept but he would be more democratic and say that all men including Jews are a piece of God. What, however, does the scripture say?

“The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt” (Deut 7:7-8).

God chose Abraham, a Gentile, not for anything good in him, but because He wanted to choose him. The traditional Jew believes in a divine oral Torah. The guide to his perplexed mind (as Maimonides could have said) is not the scriptures but the Talmud – and commentaries on it such as Maimonides’ “Mishneh Torah.” The Talmud, for the pious Jew, is his guide to understanding Deut 7:7-8 (above). The Talmud claims to dig deep below the surface text to reveal the SOD (the hidden secrets) of the mind of God. I find this view not only a linguistic aberration but, more reprehensible, an esoteric falling away from the word, from the commandments, of God. The commands of God are not difficult to understand but often difficult to do; for example, Deuteronomy 30:11-14:

11For this command which I am commanding thee to-day, it is not too wonderful for thee, nor [is] it far off.

12It is not in the heavens, — saying, Who doth go up for us into the heavens, and doth take it for us, and doth cause us to hear it — that we may do it.

13And it [is] not beyond the sea, — saying, Who doth pass over for us beyond the sea, and doth take it for us, and doth cause us to hear it — that we may do it?

14For very near unto thee is the word, in thy mouth, and in thy heart — to do it.

Jewish mysticism and Absorption into the Universal Soul

Christianity teaches that God created the world out of nothing. It bases this doctrine on the first words of the Hebrew Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In Genesis 1:26, “God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Hebrew root dama, from which we get ADAM).

What does the Bible mean by man being created in the image, in the likeness  of God? What is certain – if we accept that God is Spirit (in Christianity, when the Word was made flesh, the picture changes, of course) -  is that man is a composite of spirit and flesh, while God is pure Spirit. Genesis 1:26 does not specify what it means by man as the “image of God.” When a Christian examines the rest of scripture, the following human attributes emerge, which man shares with God: creativity, power to reason, power to make decisions, moral conscience and personal relationships. These are called the communicable attributes of God. The attributes that God does not share with man are God’s incommunicable attributes, for example, his omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful) and eternality (no beginning), immutability (unchanging).

Traditional Judaism of which a large part is mystical Judaism (Kabbalah, Chassidim) teaches that man’s soul (neshamah) is a piece of God. Some parts of the Talmud say that only the Jewish soul is a piece of God. Most Jews maintain that the Talmud says no such thing. But see here. Reconstructionist Judaism, in stark contrast to traditional Judaism, says that traditional Judaism has got it all back to front. So, to put the record straight, a little reconstruction is needed: Man is not a piece of God; God is a piece of man (God is a human construction). (See Logotherapy, Torah Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism: God, man and God-man).

I’d like to focus on two prominent rabbinical scholars of Kabbalah: Rabbi Jacob Immanuel Schochet and Rabbi Akiva Tatz. In his “Mystical Judaism,” Rabbi Schochet sets his sights on donkey scholarship:

“The sterile type of life and ‘scholarship’ of the “donkey loaded with books,” unfortunately, is quite symptomatic of the modern age and its method of alleged rational inquiry, of ‘logical positivism’ and its atomizing games of linguistic analysis. The mystical dimension forcefully counters this and bears a pervasive message of special relevance to modern man. With this message we are able to extricate ourselves from the contemporary mind- and soul-polluting forces that threaten to stifle us, and to find ourselves. For it is the tzinor, the conduit connecting us to ultimate reality. It is the stimulant causing “deep to call unto deep” – the profound depth of man’s soul calling unto the profound depth of the Universal Soul to find and absorb itself therein. Thus it brings forth and establishes the ultimate ideal of unity, of oneness, on all levels” (p. 36).

 For Rabbi Akiva Tatz, the tzinor does not only connect human beings to ultimate reality, but every else in the in the universe as well. In his Thirteen principles, part 5, 45th minute:

“The worlds above are like water, sometimes described as light…but if you take the world of water in the upper spheres. Water is undifferentiated, all the parts look the same. Imagine water in a bath. Underneath the bath there are small holes. What happens is inside the bath the water is all one, but outside it is flowing in specific channels, which are called tzinorot (צינורות) … a pipeline. You have the undifferentiated oneness in the higher world, but it comes into this world as specific differentiated channels that bring it down. Each channel is bringing an object into existence, or an event or a phenomenon. And of course you don’t need to look at the object, you can look at the channel and you will know more or less how the object will be or what will happen.”

All religious systems, by definition, assume a close connection between “ultimate reality” (Schochet) and the universe, which consists of human beings, objects and other (invisible) beings. Schochet and Tatz derive their views from the Kabbalah/Zohar, of course. While Schochet’s tzinor (pipeline, conduit) connects the human soul to the “Universal Soul to find and absorb itself therein,” Tatz’s tzinor connects ALL created beings to “the world of water in the upper spheres,” which is a different description of Schochet’s “Universal Soul.” The two descriptions – ”Universal Soul” and “the world of water in the upper spheres,”are metaphors for the “Endless One” (En Sof).

Schochet’s “Universal Soul to find and absorb itself therein,” is Buddhism – or Pythagoreanism – without idols. Kabbalah and Pythagoras have much in common. This does not necessarily mean that Pythagoras, or a similar system, influenced Jewish mysticism, for what is more expected than human beings wanting to become absorbed in the ”Universal,” or “Upper Waters.” Jews often insist that Greek and Jewish thought are poles apart. On the contrary, Jewish mysticism, Greek mysticism, Eastern mysticism, or any other kind of mysticism all sing the same absorbing universal tune.

Thomas Merton’s “I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can”: All roads, including to Rome, lead Home

I was speaking to a Christian who does Yoga – I’ll call the person C.Y. He says he only does the physical part, the Hatha part. Hatha Yoga is purification of the body, and so its focus is on exercises and breathing, which are intended as the preparatory stage for meditation. “Hatha Yoga brings about the Unity of the mind, body and spirit. Through this practice, the body is toned, strengthened and healed so that a transformation in consciousness can occur.”

C.Y. said that he doesn’t go into the spiritual side of Yoga – that side is reserved for Jesus. Having practised Hatha Yoga and meditation myself as a young man, I remarked: “When you do the breathing exercises, you feel very relaxed and at peace.” “Yes, he said beaming, and I find that this peace is a great opportunity to witness to my non-Christian Yoga friends. I tell them that the peace they feel, they can have it more deeply if they knew Jesus.”

The fact is that the Yoga breathing exercises are not merely physical. C.Y. proved it with his claim to find through these breathing exercises the door to inner peace. I can see why C.Y. fell for this deception. After all, didn’t the Lord Jesus say much about peace. I don’t, however, believe that Yoga peace and Christian peace are compatible, because the peace found through Yoga creates the conviction that the answer to life’s problems is all about finding peace, which is not the Christian message at all. The Christian Gospel is about sin, repentance and Jesus Christ as a substitutionary sacrifice who pays the penalty for the believer’s sin. Christianity is about becoming a child of God, a God who is distinct from His creatures. Christianity does not teach that “we share a common Self, and that inner peace and Love are in fact all that are real…” (Gerald Jampolsky). From personal experience, I know that when you do Hatha Yoga (you don’t have to go into any deeper kind of Yoga), you have the experience of sharing a common Self (with a capital S) – a deceptive form of “The Kingdom of heaven is within you.” But then, many Yoga practitioners will tell you a similar story. And this search for inner peace is the force that drives so many, including many Jews,among them many young Israelis who “leave the army and go to India looking for wisdom, so that they can make sense of the spiritual world.”

Where there is peace, there is love; and love and peace are believed by many to be the goal. One cannot, the gurus say, achieve peace nd love without a transformation of conscioussness.  This transformation of consciousness is the foundation of Eastern thought systems such as Buddhism and Yoga, which has become a key ingredient in Western psychotherapy. “Hatha Yoga brings about the Unity of the mind, body and spirit. Through this practice, the body is toned, strengthened and healed so that a transformation in consciousness can occur.” The ultimate aim of this transformation of consciousness is, in the Jewish psychiatrist’s words, is a “search for a better way of going through life that is producing a new awareness and a change of consciousness. It is like a spiritual flood that is about to cleanse the earth. This transformation of consciousness is prompting us to look inward, and as we explore our inner spaces, we recognize the harmony and at-one-ment that has ALWAYS (Jampolsky’s emphasis) been there. As we look inward we also become aware of an inner intuitive voice which provides a reliable source of guidance…listen to the inner voice and surrender to it…In this silence…we can experience the joy of peace in our lives” (p. 11. my underlining).

I now elaborate on the mystical strivings of Eastern thought and it’s influence on Christianity with  specific reference to the “Catholic Buddhist,” Thomas Merton, who has had a massive influence on “universalist” thought in Catholicism. By “universalist” I mean “all paths, including Rome, lead Home.” In the 1940-60s,  many Catholics joined monastic orders under Merton’s influence.

In the previous post, I examined the Catholic Carlo Carretto’s mystical musings on universal love. In what he calls his “mystical” communion with God, Carretto says, “love and all becomes logical, easy and true.” (Carlo Carretto, “I sought and I found, 1985, Orbis Books, 1985, p. 64). Carretto describes his visit to the “the temple of Kamakura, some hundred kilometres from Tokyo. It was a marvellous morning. And for the Japanese it was the day the birth of life was celebrated. Prospective bridegrooms were escorting their brides-to-be before the great Buddha…I was enchanted by all this beauty, and by such throngs of people at prayer…such vitality, such hope. Look how many ‘are finding’…How many have found! See how they love one another! See how they hope! Don’t be afraid! God is the living one!”

Religions share many common features such as faith, hope and love, and many other features. For example, certain parts of the Bhagavad Gita, a core Hindu text, resonate well with other religions, as well as with all philosophies, even materialist ones. Here is a verse from the Gita:  “One cannot remain without engaging in activity at any time, even for a moment; certainly all living entities are helplessly compelled to action by the qualities endowed by the material nature.” (Chapter 3, verse 5).

You don’t have to be religious to appreciate that living creatures can’t help it: they always have to be doing something. But, the Gita is saying more than this. It is this frenzied compulsion to action that is the cause of much human misery. All religions agree on this. The first chapter of the King Solomon’s book “Ecclesiastes”  (1:1-3) begins:

The words of Koheleth son of David, king in Jerusalem. Vanity of vanities, said Koheleth; vanity of vanities, all is vanity. What profit has man in all his toil that he toils under the sun?”

(Koheleth is Hebrew for “gatherer”, “assembler”. Koheleth is the Hebrew name of the book of Ecclesiastes).

There are other verses in the Gita that resonate with the Bible.

From the Gita: “But if a man will meditate on Me and Me alone, and will worship Me always and everywhere, I will take upon Myself the fulfilment of his aspiration, and I will safeguard whatsoever he shall attain. (Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 17).

From the Bible:  “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me….. If you keep My commandments, you shall abide in My love, even as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. I have spoken these things to you so that My joy might remain in you and your joy might be full” (John 15:4-11).

The Gita says: “I am the source of all; from Me everything flows,” and  “Of all the creative Powers I am the Creator…” (Ch. 10, The Divine Manifestations). The Hebrew Bible and the Christian Gospel say similar things to the Gita. There is, however, much chalk in the Gita that clashes with the cheese of the Bible. One overarching  difference is the nature of the divine being. Here is just one verse that shows the difference:

Know that among horses I am Pegasus, the heaven-born; among the lordly elephants I am the White one, and I am the Ruler among men.” (Ch. 10 “Divine Manifestations”). Who is this “I am”, this individual consciousness? It is my Self, THE Self, Ultimate Consciousness. The “divine manifestations” pervade everything.

When I was a devout Catholic, I read the great Catholic mystics such as Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. I was still wet behind the mystical ears, and had no idea that you could be a good Catholic and a good Buddhist at the same time. According to Thomas Merton, Buddhism and Catholicism are two sides of the same same Koinona (communion); they participate, according to Merton, in the same communion of divine fellowship where each is a different door to God, human solidarity and brotherhood. Yet, Christ said: “Truly, truly (that is, I am telling you the absolute truth), I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” ” If Merton’s – and Carretto’s – universalism is right, then surely this must mean that Christ is wrong.

Merton’s classic work is his autobiography “The Seven Storey Mountain” (1948). The title of the book refers to the mountain of Purgatory in Dante’s “Divine Comedy”. When young, Merton was exposed to nominal protestant Christianity.  Like many others, he found little satisfaction in academic study and political commitment. In 1938, at the age of 23, he had a dramatic conversion experience, and found his ultimate truth in Roman Catholicism.

Merton’s struggles of the flesh and his eventual conversion, related in “The Seven Storey Mountain,” have been compared to the “Confessions” of St Augustine. Whereas Augustine kept on stressing how depraved he was, he doesn’t provide any salacious detail. Merton, in contrast, did go into some detail. His superiors of the monastery would not permit publication of “The Seven Storey Mountain,” (1947) until he had lopped off the bawdy bits.

I had converted to Catholicism at the age of 19, in 1960, in my second year at the University of Cape Town. Contrary to Merton, I found great satisfaction in academic study. It was the brilliance of Thomas Aquinas, the lucidity of French Catholic writers like Etienne Gilson and Gabriel Marcel, and the apologetic aplomb of Bishop Fulton Sheen that compelled me to bow the intellectual knee and acquiesce to Rome.

Soon after publication of The Seven Storey Mountain, the book had a great influence on vocations to the priesthood and to the monastic life. Many of those entering the religious life arrived with a copy of The Seven Storey Mountain tucked in their suitcase. Together with their Bibles? Albert Nolan, the well-known South African Dominican priest, was greatly influenced by Thomas Merton to enter the religious life. Albert entered the Stellenbosch priory in the early 1960s. I encountered his gaunt radiance often when I stayed at the priory.

When I read Merton’s story in the early 1960s I also got caught up in the majestic sweep of the book’s all-encompassing spirituality. I went on frequent visits to the Dominican priory in Stellenbosch, and spent weekends and even part of the university holidays living the life of an honorary monk.

Merton entered the Abbey of Gethsemani  as a trappist  monk in 1941. Over the next 20 years he wrote on a wide range of topics from contemplative prayer to economic injustice. He was one of the first Catholics to not only commend Eastern mysticism but to absorb Eastern philosophy and practices into Catholicism. What made Merton so attractive was his universalism. He embodied the glorious quest for unity and compassion among men.  If he were alive today, he would have been, as was Mother Teresa, a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. And like Mother Teresa, won it.

Some of the things that Merton said make it very difficult to understand how he can reconcile his Catholicism with Buddhism. Merton wants to be both a Buddhist and a Catholic. He says: “I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity. The future of Zen is in the West. I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can.” “And not only now and zen”, as Issy, my father, would have said – if the penchant had arisen to become a Buddhist; a Jewish Buddhist; “Jubu.”

Was Merton, a Catholic Buddhist or a Buddhist Catholic? Without doubt, he wanted to be both a good Catholic and a good Buddhist. But what mattered most to Merton was to become a saint . “Saint” and “holy” connote the same idea. “Saint” comes from the French “saint” through Latin sanctus;  “holy” comes from the Germanic halig, heilig.  Merton wanted to become a saint more than anything. The problem, he recognized, was that if you try to become a saint, the trying itself disqualifies you. If I want to be a saint,  I musn’t try to be one. If I see myself becoming holy, I must hide it; not only from the world, but from myself. It is hard to square the idea of “not trying” with the Catholic and Buddhist notion of works of purification; of climbing the ladder of perfection, of purification – in short, the ladder of sainthood. Not is there only the unbiblical problem of works as a condition of salvation, but there is also the hard job of trying to keep the works for God’s eyes only.

The Biblical view is that if you thirst for holiness, it is because God gave you that thirst. The natural man hates God and, therefore, is totally unable to love the things of God. Man’s nature is to love himself and to hate God. Is there anything that the natural man hates more than God, and will fill him with fury? I think there is: he hates more than anything to be told that he hates God. It’s not only natural man that hates to be told that he is dead – totally dead – to the things of God. Many Christians also block their ears and fume at the “blasphemous” idea that in Christian salvation, there are no ladders to climb or even little fingers to wiggle.  All flee from God; unless He calls:

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;

I fled Him, down the arches of the years;

I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways

Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears

I hid from Him, and under running laughter.

“Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,

I am He Whom thou seekest !

(“The Hound of heaven” – Francis Thompson)

Christ gives the believer a new nature, a holy nature. There are two parts to becoming holy (sanctification). I have mentioned the first part. The second is that we grow in holiness. That is what the Bible means by “Be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16). This does not mean that we must now try to finish the job that God “merely” kick-started. Much effort and suffering is often involved: “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. Don’t, however, forget to read the next the word in the sentence “for” , and see what it is there for: “for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” It is God who works in his children, through his children. In the Bible, I don’t see any striving, any travailing, any climbing of ladders of perfection, any ascetic purifications in pursuit of God. But then I’m a sola scriptura (ok, solo scriptura if you’re a Catholic and also like jokes) man.

Universalism, Love, and the Mystical Desertion of the Gospel

In Christian theology, there are two kinds of “universal salvation.” The first kind  is described in one of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, “Nostra Aetate,” which is the Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions proclaimed by Pope Paul VI, October, 1965. Nostra Aetate rejects the papal (infallible) bulls of previous centuries by stating that salvation can be attained in other religions if adherents remain faithful to their beliefs and follow universal moral laws of love (See my Buddhism, Judaism and Catholic Nostra Aetate).

The second kind of universal salvation states that every human being will be reconciled to God, no matter what their beliefs or non-beliefs or their (im)moral behaviour. This was the belief of Carlo Carretto. Carretto was the leader of the Italian post-World War II youth movement known as Catholic Action. In 1954, He resigned from that position and joined the Little Brothers of Jesus at their novitiate in the Sahara desert. The Little Brothers of Jesus movement was inspired by the life and writings of Charles de Foucauld.

In 1983, five years before his death, Carretto wrote “I sought and I found,” which was a response to Augusto Guerriero’s (Ricciardetto) “I sought and I did not find.”  When Ricciardetto died, Carrretto said of him, “Now he is in the light.” Carretto writes:

Word of his death reached me in Japan one sunny Sunday while I was visiting the temple of Kamakura, some hundred kilometres from Tokyo. It was a marvellous morning. And for the Japanese it was the day the birth of life was celebrated. Prospective bridegrooms were escorting their brides-to-be before the great Buddha…I was enchanted by all this beauty, and by such throngs of people at prayer. And if Ricciardetto had been there with me, he too would have been moved to behold such vitality, such hope. Look how many ‘are finding,’ I would have told him! How many have found! See how they love one another! See how they hope! Don’t be afraid! God is the living one!” (Carlo Carretto, “I sought and I found, Orbis Books, 1985, p.7 – Translation of the Italian edition published in 1983).

I spent more than 20 years in the Catholic Church (age 19 to 41) and all the relatives on my wife’s side are Catholics. My impression, after wide exposure to Catholics and reading modern Catholic literature (like Carretto), is that a large number of Catholics believe, with Carretto, not only that God is love but that love is God, that is, if you are loving towards another, you are a child of God, a child of the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. These Catholics regard the following papal Bulls – ex cathedra (infallible) declarations – as a mystical heresy:

We declare,say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Papal Bull ” Unam Sanctum”, 1302 A.D.)

The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her. ( Pope Eugene IV, the Papal Bull ” Cantate Domino”, 1441 A.D.).

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, outside the (Catholic) Church there is no salvation.”The Catholic Church is the Vine , you the branches: he who abides in the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church in him, the same bears much fruit, for without the Catholic Church you can do nothing. If anyone is not in the Catholic Church , he shall be cast forth like a branch and wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him him into the fire, and he burneth” ( John 15:5-6).He who is not with the Catholic Church is against the Catholic Church; he who gathers not with the Catholic Church scatters” ( Matt: 12:30).Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name – than the Catholic Church – under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved  (Acts. 4:12).

In a loving nutshell: “Love and all becomes logical, easy and true.” (Carlo Carretto, “I sought and I found, 1985, Orbis Books, 1985, p. 64). This view of love (for others) fills much modern Jewish thought as well; for example, Gerald Jampolsky and Jerry Weintraub whom I discussed elsewhere. Towards the end of his book, Carretto says: “The grandest thing I can say about God is that he is merciful, and I believe in universal salvation” (p. 133). What, however, does the Lord Jesus say?

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16-17).

Carretto would say, like the majority of professing Christians, that “world” means everyone in the world. But then come the verses that contradict Carretto’s “universal” salvation view.  “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God (John 3:18).

I mentioned above that when Ricciardetto died, Carrretto said of him, “Now he is in the light.” Not so, according to the next verse: “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light… (John 3:19).

About Jesus loving universally (everybody in the world), Jesus prays in his “unity” prayer:

“[6] I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. [7] Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. [8] For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. [9] I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours (John 17:6-9 ESV, my italics and emphasis).

God’s love and mercy – and light, – infuriatingly, for universalists and many others, are only for those the Father gave (from eternity) to Jesus out of the world. These are those who “believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

There is the further question of how those whom the Father gives the Son come to believe. Simple – for God, but not simple for the human ego:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). And those who come will certainly be sanctified and glorified and raised on the last day:

For those whom he foreknew (which means “foreloved,” of course) he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Romans 8:29-30 ESV). Now, “do not grumble among yourselves” (John 6:43) over God’s sovereign choices.

Universalism finds its greatest supporter in the “mystical” experience of being close to God. One of the greatest mystical heroes in Roman Catholicism is Thomas Merton. Carretto was, like Thomas Merton, a Catholic mystic who believed that other religions such a Buddhism was a valid path to salvation (See John 17 and Catholic Universalism: That they may be One – (Reformed) Protestants need not apply). Indeed, Buddhism to Merton was not merely another way to union with God.

There is a growing number of contemporary Catholic monasteries and parishes that hold Buddhist retreats and workshops. A Jesuit priest come Zen master, Robert E. Kennedy, holds Zen retreats at his “Morning Star Zendo”. Kennedy asks “students to trust themselves and to develop their own self-reliance through the practice of Zen.” ( I’m not recommending Kennedy’s Zendo, but merely citing my sources, which  I like to do not just now and zen, but often).

Some of the things that Thomas Merton said make it very difficult to understand how he can reconcile his Catholicism with Buddhism. Merton wants to be both a Buddhist and a Catholic. He says: “I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity.”It’s difficult to understand how one can be both a good Zen Buddhist and a good Catholic. It seems Kennedy was more interested in converting Catholics to Buddhism than in Catholicism itself. “The future of Zen is in the West,” he says.  And the future of Catholicism? That was too limited in scope, too Roman; not universal enough, not catholic enough. The future lay in the emergent union to be born out of the merger between East and West. Merton had the backing of his illustrious and saintly predecessor, St Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, who proclaimed: “All that is true, by whomever it has been said, is from the Holy Spirit.” Could we also say “all that is deep, by whomever it has been said, is from the Holy Spirit.” Merton was influenced by Gandhi who advocated that the way to finding the deeper roots of one’s own religious tradition is by  immersing oneself in other religions, and then returning “home” to see one’s own traditions and beliefs in a clearer light.

The Catholic Church, since Vatican II (1961), has radically changed its attitude towards inter-religious dialogue. Merton and other Catholic devotees of Eastern thought had a significant influence on changing Rome’s attitude to non-Christian religions. The papal encyclical Nostra Aetate (“In Our Time”) states: (Nostra Aetate is the Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions proclaimed by Pope Paul VI, October, 1965)The Church therefore has this exhortation for her sons: prudently and lovingly, through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and in witness of Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve, and promote the spiritual and moral goods found among these men, as well as the values in their society and culture” (Nostra Aetate 2). (See Buddhism, Judaism and Catholic Nostra Aetate).

Mother Teresa, another universalist, would never have dreamed of bringing the Gospel to the sick and the dying:

We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” (Her Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers, pp. 81-82).

In the biography Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work, she is quoted by Desmond Doig as follows: “If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are. … What approach would I use? For me, naturally, it would be a Catholic one, for you it may be Hindu, for someone else, Buddhist, according to one’s conscience. What God is in your mind you must accept” (Doig, Mother Teresa, Harper & Row, 1976, p. 156).

At the beginning of this piece, I mentioned that Caretto joined the Little Brothers of Jesus at their novitiate in the Sahara desert. Carretto writes:”The desert – the real desert, the one made out of jackal howls and starry nights – was the place of my encounter with God…No longer did I wish to discuss him. I wanted to know him…I sought the God of all seven days of the week, not the God of Sunday…It was not hard because he was there ready waiting for me. And I found him. And this is why I say with joy, and dare to testify to my brothers and sisters in the Spirit: ‘I Sought and I Found’” (p. 10).

The desert is a favourite locus for mystical encounters of universal love, where one can become so absorbed into that love that it is easy to forget – or to ever consider – that “whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son”(John 3:18) – a forgetfulness that is a desertion – of the Gospel.

Buddhism, Judaism and Catholic Nostra Aetate

(See related post “John 17 and Catholic Universalism: That they may be One – (Reformed) Protestants need not apply”).

There is a growing number of contemporary Catholic monasteries and parishes that hold Buddhist retreats and workshops. A Jesuit priest come Zen master, Robert E. Kennedy, holds Zen retreats at his “Morning Star Zendo”. Kennedy asks “students to trust themselves and to develop their own self-reliance through the practice of Zen.” ( I’m not recommending Kennedy’s Zendo, but merely citing my sources, which  I like to do not just now and zen, but often).

It’s difficult to understand how one can be both a good Zen Buddhist and a good Catholic. It seems he was more interested in converting Catholics to Buddhism than in Catholicism itself. “The future of Zen is in the West,” he says. And the future of Catholicism? That was too limited in scope, too Roman; not universal enough, not catholic enough. The future lay in the emergent union to be born out of the merger between East and West. Merton had the backing of his illustrious and saintly predecessor, St Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, who proclaimed: “All that is true, by whomever it has been said, is from the Holy Spirit.” Could we also say “all that is deep, by whomever it has been said, is from the Holy Spirit.”

Merton was influenced by Gandhi who advocated that the way to finding the deeper roots of one’s own religious tradition is by  immersing oneself in other religions, and then returning “home” to see one’s own traditions and beliefs in a clearer light. The Catholic Church, since Vatican II (1961), has radically changed its attitude towards inter-religious dialogue. Merton and other Catholic devotees of Eastern thought had a significant influence on changing Rome’s attitude to non-Christian religions. The papal encyclical Nostra Aetate (“In Our Time”) states:

(Nostra Aetate is the Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions proclaimed by Pope Paul VI, October, 1965)

“The Church therefore has this exhortation for her sons: prudently and lovingly, through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and in witness of Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve, and promote the spiritual and moral goods found among these men, as well as the values in their society and culture” (Nostra Aetate 2).

Wayne Teasdale comments that the (Catholic) church has yet to realize the full implications of the above statement.

The encyclical Nostra Aetate started out (in 1961, the year of Vatican II) as a “Decree on the Jews.” The final text of Nostra Aetate consisted of five sections:

  1. Introduction.
  2. Hindus, Buddhists, and other religions.
  3. Muslims.
  4. Jews.
  5. Conclusion.

The Vatican starts out with the best of intentions towards the Jews. “Let’s try and sort out this Jewish millstone hanging round our necks of Pope Pius and the Holocaust. (Pope Pius XII was on the papal throne during the Holocaust). The Jewish view is that could have done more to save the Jews.  We’ll stop telling the Jews that they killed their Messiah. We’ll write an encyclical and say, “it is wrong to call them an accursed people,…or a deicidal people,…”.  Hang on. Why waste a whole encyclical on the Jews.  While we’re about it, let’s go the whole hog and bring in the Muslims and the East as well. Let’s be truly catholic.” The monotheistic Jews end up as the last item behind the monotheistic Muslims. But who gets first prize? The new darlings on the Catholic block – Buddha and Krishna.

In October 2010, “Why Israel” reports, a Catholic synod called at the Vatican to discuss increasing persecution of Christians in the Middle East.  Much of its final statement was related to the Vatican’s demand to Israel to end its “occupation” of Arab lands. In his final statement at the synod, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros of Boston said that Biblical  promises made by God to Israel “were nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people.”   The Editor of “Why Israel” concludes, “the Vatican’s commitment to its earlier declaration regarding the Jews and God’s promises to them remains at least partially in question.” What commitment? It’s all tripe.

I’ve been scathing, which is, arguably, inimical to interfaith dialogue. My view is that much interfatih dialogue  is mostly, and often  sentimental; but not spiritual.  In interfaith dialogue, there are religions that have contradictory revelations from the same God. Only one can be true. Each of these religions, if they want remain faithful and true to their own, should not budge on their major doctrines (which they believe comes from God). What, therefore, is there to dialogue about except “let’s respect the UN Charter on Human Rights, and not violate our right to free speech and free assembly, and so forth”? In a nutshell “Let’s not harass or persecute one another, and let’s also try to find a way to  make the world a better place for all;” which is what all (secular) humanists also desire.

Let me consider further the problem of interfaith relations. Here is the attitude of a Rabbi and a Priest (Catholic?) to each other:

Rabbi Blech sincerely wants his fellow Jews to have more respect for the goyim.

Rabbi Blech mentioned a “priest” he met at an airport who asked him for a blessing.

Priest: “May I ask you a very important favour?”

Rabbi Blech: Sure

Priest: All my life, I’ve been waiting to meet a rabbi because I know that you are God’s chosen people, and all my life, I’ve been waiting to ask a rabbi for a blessing. I would love a blessing from a rabbi, could you do that for me.”

Rabbi Blech: (To his audience) By the way. How would you respond. Some people would say, “Ah, a goy,” – and I gave him a blessing. I said a posik (portion) for him and translated for him and this man walked away as if he had been given the greatest gift in the world, a brocha (blessing) from a Jew. Do you understand where the Bible belt in America is today? Do you understand how much respect there is in America today for Jews? There’s a whole world out there that thinks that knows that acknowledges that recognises that we are God’s chosen people, that puts us on a higher level. I said to myself I was a Rabbi in young Israel for 40 years, nobody came to me and said, Rabbi, you know you are the ultimate, give me a brocha..

Blech believes we are living in the pre-messianic soon return of Messiah. “One of the signs is that the goyim will start to do tchuva (Repentance).

What I have written above is part of a much longer piece. I go on to speak of Pope John Paul’s desire to do tshuva (repentance).

I wonder how much influence Thomas Merton and his sympathizers had in the drafting of “In Our Time” (Nostra Aetate). Earlier I quoted from the Nostra Aetate:

“The Church therefore has this exhortation for her sons: prudently and lovingly, through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and in witness of Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve, and promote the spiritual and moral goods found among these men, as well as the values in their society and culture” (Nostra Aetate ).

I quoted Wayne Teasdale earlier: “the (Catholic) church has yet to realize the full implications of the above statement.”  The Vatican was cautious of Thomas Merton. It had reason to be so.

Merton doesn’t worry about the radical differences between the two faiths. But then “differences” imply dualism. Religions shouldn’t duel because dualism is an illusion. Merton’s universalistic monism defies logic. Some may argue that logic is a Greek fabrication. Aristotle says that A cannot be not-A. Aristotle cannot be and not be (Aristotle). Who says? Aristotle. But listen to “The science of sciences and the mysteries of mysteries” of the Bhagavad-Gita: I am Being and Not-Being (Chapter 5). The Jews, and ergo the Catholics are unscientific.

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ “  (Exodus 3:13-14).

Here is the Buddhist adaptation:

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am NOT . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM-NOT-AM has sent me to you.’ ” (Exodus 3:13-14)

A Buddhist ditches the law of contradiction into the ocean of life and death, but no Catholic can do so. Catholic theology without logic is like Socrates without his dialectic: a diuretic. But we don’t have to appeal to theology. We can go right to its source: the Christian scriptures. But the Buddha first.

Buddha’s final words to his disciples were:

“Make of yourself a light. Rely upon yourself; do not rely upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them; do not depend upon any other teaching.”

Contrast that with the words of John the Baptist:

“He was not himself the light, but was to bear witness to the light” (John, 1:8). John the Baptist continued to proclaim that Christ “is the true light that enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John, 1:9).

Christ says “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (John 8:12). Christ is the light. No human being has any light IN himself waiting to shine forth.

To return to the Jews, the original inspiration for Nostra Aetate:

The Pontifical Biblical Commission statement (2002), entitled “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,” states that (I quote from a Catholic article):

“the Jewish concept of a future Messias does not conflict with the Christian belief in Jesus, for, it states, “The Jewish Messianic expectation is not vain.” How could such an expectation be not vain, given that they refuse Christ, the only Messias, who has already come? This means, if taken to its logical conclusion, that the refusal of the mystery of the Incarnation, of the birth of our Divine Savior in the flesh, is no longer a sin of infidelity, that is a grave sin against the Faith. If this were the case, how could it still be true for Our Lord to say: “I am the way, and the truth and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by me” (Jn. 14:6)?

(See related post “John 17 and Catholic Universalism: That they may be One – (Reformed) Protestants need not apply”).

John 17 and Universalism: That they may be One – (Reformed)

The Silence of the Gaps: Dom John Main’s Mystical Mutilations in Romans

If someone were to say that the Holy Spirit plays a central role in the Christian life, no Christian would argue, if what the person means by central is  “very important,” and “crucial.” We would say the same about the Father and about the Son. However, if we compare the roles of the Son and the Holy Spirit, I think it would be correct to say that Christ is at the centre of  Salvation, and the Holy Spirit, graciously, plays a supporting role. In the light of this supposition, consider the following excerpt from “Words in Silence.” The author is Dom John Main, a Benedictine monk. On p. 3, he quotes (New English Bible – C.H. Dodd) St Paul’s letter to the Romans 1:1-5:

I have underlined pertinent sections. Notice the gap between “ours” (end of verse 2) and “because,” (second half of verse 5). shortly.

Romans 1:1-5

    Verse 1. Therefore, now that we have been justified through faith, let us continue at peace with God through the Lord, Jesus Christ, Verse 2. through whom we have been allowed to enter the sphere of God’s grace, where we now stand. Let us exult in the hope of the divine splendour that is to be ours ….. Verse 5b because God’s love has flooded our inmost heart through the Holy Spirit he has given us.”

Dom Main comments: “His (St Paul) great conviction is that the 1. central reality of our Christian faith is the sending of the Spirit of Jesus; 2. indeed our faith is a living faith precisely because the living Spirit of God dwells within us, giving new life to our mortal bodies.”

Dom Main’s point 2 is right; his point 1 is wrong: the sending of the Spirit of Jesus (the Holy Spirit) is not, according to the Bible, the “central reality of our faith”.

Dom Main is right when he says that it is the Holy Spirit living in Christians that breathes life into their faith. But he is wrong to say that Paul thinks – or any Christian should think – that the sending of the Holy Spirit is the “central reality of our Christian faith”. It seems that Dom Main’s view is a common “mystical” (my term) interpretation. The Bible, in many places, clearly states what the centrality of faith is. Here is one passage. Jesus is speaking, after the resurrection, to his disciples (a short while before His ascension into heaven).

Luke 24:44-48 (I’ve marked two relevant sections, A and B):

“He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures. And he said to them, “Thus it is written that:

A. the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

B. You are witnesses of these things. And (behold) I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Dom Main says that B is the “central reality”. I would say the central reality is A: the suffering (death), the rising from the dead, and the repentance of sinners and forgiveness of sins for those who have faith that Christ has died, Christ has risen (and Christ will come again):

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1Cor 15:3,4).

What is the Holy Spirit’s role in the “economy” of salvation? He is the “sealer” of the Faith, the Counsellor, the Comforter, the Revealer of truth, the Power from on high that equips us – to learn, to understand, to love, to witness. And to suffer for the Gospel. Nothing the Holy Spirit does can be divorced from the Word of God. Whenever, we read the Word the God, we should truistically read it in context. What is the context of the references to the Holy Spirit in Romans 5:1-5?

I return to Dom Main’s quote of Romans 5:1-5, and the dots between “our” and “because”, which indicates that Dom Main had left something out. Well, he left out half of Romans 5:1-5.  (He said he was quoting verses 1-5). Dots within a quote indicate that the quoter thinks the part he omits  is not central to his purpose. Dom Main is correct. They are not central to his purpose;. What is his purpose? His purpose is to show that the Bible considers the “central reality of our Christian faith” to be “the sending of the Spirit of Jesus” (Dom Main above).

Let’s see what Dom Main skipped in Romans 5:1-5. Here is the restored passage verses 1–5. The part in bold is what Dom Main left out. Pay special attention to the word “hope” in different parts of the passage.

1 Therefore now that we have been justified through faith, let us continue at peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have been allowed to enter the sphere of God’s grace, where we now stand. Let us exult in the hope of the divine Splendour that is to be ours. 3 More than this: let us even exult in our present sufferings, because we know that suffering trains us to endure, 4 and endurance brings proof that we have stood the test, and this proof is the ground of hope. 5 Such a hope is no mockery, because God’s love has flooded our inmost heart through the Holy Spirit he has given us.

In Dom Main’s mutilation of Romans 5:1-5 (slicing off verses 3,4 and a part of 5) , “hope” refers only to “the hope of divine splendour”. But what does the unmutilated text say. The “ground” of “hope” is not divine splendour, but  being proved through “present sufferings”, “endurance”, and standing the “test”; in one word – through the cross; where the hope of divine splendour/glory shines through. Through Christ Jesus.

“Did you know then”, to quote Paul again, a chapter later, that “all of us  who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death?” (Romans 6:3). “Baptised” here is not so much the physical act of immersing your body in water, but immersing yourself in Christ’s suffering and death – and, consequently, in your own death as well.

“Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptised with the baptism with which I am baptised?” (Mark 10:38).

In “The Passion of Bach: The Heart of Tragedy”, I described a well-known conductor who told of the deep effect Bach’s tragic “Passion of Christ” had on him. Not that he believed that the person being crucified was anything but a man. “You don’t, he said, have to be a Christian to feel the pain and the tragedy of such suffering.” From the Christian point of view, he didn’t understand that this Death meant much more than a human tragedy; it was a Death that brings life. I concluded that failure to grasp the meaning of this Death is what lies at the heart of tragedy.

With regard to Dom Main’s mutilation – with its “spirit-filled” intentions, there could also be a tragedy there. While the music conductor was ignorant of the Bible (for reasons known to God), Dom Main displaced the centrality of Christ by giving us a Holy Spirit-centred Gospel. As I mentioned above, the work of the Holy Spirit is to reveal  Christ, and to strengthen us in Christ. Of course, it is absolutely valid, and very good, to learn as much as we can about the Holy Spirit, who is the third person of the Trinity. What I think was not so good was the manner in which Dom Main went about excluding from Romans 5:1-5, “3 More than this: let us even exult in our present sufferings, because we know that suffering trains us to endure, 4 and endurance brings proof that we have stood the test, and this proof is the ground of hope.” In Romans 5:1-5, Christian faith is grounded in sufferings that trains a Christian to endure to the end, and ultimately he will be taken up to the divine splendor of Christ, his Saviour. The Holy Spirit is the One who helps the Christian on the Way.

The conductor of Bach’s “Passion” sobbed over the death of a man called Jesus. Or was it the music itself that brought on the sorrow? Music does that. The Conductor doesn’t know (and/or care) about scripture. Dom Main, on the other hand, has studied much, and also, no doubt, cares much about scripture. All the more reason that he should  “divide” the word with more diligence, without cutting it up so.

“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

The greatest danger of mysticism for the Christian is to displace Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, a more universal term, which appeals to mystics across the religious smorgasbrod.

P.S. Dom John Main can’t respond to my criticisms, because he died in 1982. But someone else may wish to do so.

The Torah Sacrifice to Demons

In “Sacrifice and the Weaning of the Primitive Jew,” I discussed two contrasting Jewish views of sacrifice. There is an embarrassment of Jewish views on the meaning of the Temple sacrifices. They all seem to be on a different literal page (of Torah). As long as there exists different levels of meaning – the “revealed” meaning (the grammatical historical meaning), the “allusional meaning” and the “secret” meaning (sod) – Jewish interpreters of the Torah, in their belief that God has ordained these three levels, can find themselves in more than deep water. How deep – and hot -  is what I want to talk about here.

Baruch Levine[1] writes:

“expiation addressed itself to the presence of impurity, the actualized form of evil forces operative in the human environment. This was the function of expiation as a phenomenon. It was not so much that Yahweh had to be appeased for the offenses committed. To the extent that this was the case, such mollification took the form of sacrifice, itself. The accompanying expiation through blood, as distinct from the sacrificial gift, itself, became necessary because Yahweh demanded that the forces of impurity, unleashed by the offenses committed, be kept away from his immediate environment” (p.62).

YHVH was wrathful, says Levine, not so much for being disobeyed, but mainly “for his own protection.”

How, asks Levine, does YHVH protect himself? Through the blood “offered to the demonic forces who accept it in lieu of God’s “life,” so to speak, and depart, just as they accept it in lieu of human life in other cultic contexts” (P.62).

So, the Holy One of Israel is relegated to the level of a whimpering Baal worshiper propitiating the demons through animal (and human?) sacrifice.

“What advantage then hath the Jew? …Much in every way: chiefly, because unto him were committed the utterances (logion λόγιον) of God” (Romans 3:2)

In Levine’s case, this cannot be  true. Where does he get these allusions from? Not from the words on the page; not even from the allusions bouncing off the page. From the secret unwritten knowledge (sod)? Levine plunges the VAV o f Torah into the belly of demons. What does Levine discover in the entrails of Torah? The BLACK kABBAlah of demons!

תורה

 


[1] Baruch A. Levine. 1974. In the presence of the Lord: a study of cult and some cultic terms in Ancient Israel. Leiden: E.J. Brill, pp. 65 – 66. Baruch Levine is the Professor Emeritus of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at New York University

 

Letters of Hebrew fire – the depth and death of meaning

See follow-on posts Digging below the surface of Torah, Midrash and Vulgate: When very good is evil
and The Slaughter of Isaac: An Axegesis of Laughter in Genesis.

During the three years I was at Wynberg school, I attended afternoon Kheder (Cheder/Cheider) “Hebrew School” (literally “room”) where we studied for our Bar Mitzvah. I remember the classes well. Reverend Gordon (in the 1950s a rabbi was called “Reverend”) of the Wynberg Synagogue was our teacher. He was a small man in his sixties with a husky voice, a wide-brimmed perennial black hat engulfing his pasty wrinkled face. We had to learn long bits of the Tanakh by heart. No one in the class understood what they were reading.This mindless recitation is common among non-Israeli Jews.

”When I was called to the bima, relates Avram Yehoshua, who hails from the US,  to read the haftara portion (the portion of Scripture from the Prophets that the bar Mitzva boy reads), I chanted it melodically and without mistake. The only problem was that I had no idea what the Hebrew words meant or what I was doing, except that today I would ‘become a man.’”

Back to Stuppel in Wynberg, South Africa. Stuppel was the star of the show in the chaida class: he regurgitated large chunks of discourse at full speed, and without dropping a single fiery letter. I was stuppelfired. He consigned the best fire-eaters to the flames.

Hebrew is a phonetic language with a very simple stress system like Italian and Afrikaans. It is possible, therefore, to read fluently but only understand effluently. There may indeed be an emotional bond with the letters filling the eyes and the sounds rattling off the tongue. How many Jews will tell you that they have this warm feeling when they look at or mouth Hebrew letters? But what about what it means? I do not mean that the structure of a language (the language code) has no value. What I mean is that the structure without the meaning is just an empty shell. If all you do is throw egg shells around, people might think you’re cracked. On the other hand, a Kabbalist will probably tell me that I’m a שמאָק (shmok) because I don’t understand that the ש and מ and אָ and ק each have meaning in themselves, and that the mindless(?) recitation of these letters influences the mind and heart in ways that the goyim and ignorant Jew fail to grasp. Islam says the same thing about Muslims who recite the Arabic Qur’an without understanding it, which comprises the majority of Muslims. The Arabic word qur`ān means “recitation”, which is related to the Hebrew kara “read, call, call out, name”.

The emotional bond with Hebrew (-looking-sounding words) is no different from the feelings that different sense impressions evoke – sights, smells, sounds, textures. Yesterday I bought a roll mop1 (a strip of herring wrapped around pickle and onion rings impaled on a toothpick) because it reminded me of all the lovely pickled herring my mother used to make. It felt so heimish (like home). I placed the roll mop on a plate, went to sit under the tree in the small lush garden, unwrapped the slab of herring, peeled the loathsome silvery grey skin off the back, broke off little slabs, which I deftly deposited  in my mouth. Lots of things can make an old Jew feel heimish: when it comes to food – chicken soup, chopped liver, kiegelech, teigelech; or when it comes to music – Sophie Tucker and Kol Nidre.

Barry Freundel, in his “Contemporary Orthodox Judaism’s response to modernity” (pp. 11-12) says:

The revelatory character of the material in the Bible serves as a rationale and multiple[level analysis of these texts that one finds in the rabbinic literature called the oral law. The Bible represents miraculous information. As such, while it can and should be read on its most idiomatically understandable level (what we call peshat) other levels of interpretation are also available because of the very nature of the origin of the text. These other levels are called derash, or deeper analysis, remez, or hints, which includes such things as gematria (numerological parallels and notarikon (words whose deeper meaning is revealed by the abbreviations hidden behind the letters); and sod, or secret analysis, meaning esoteric or mystical interpretation.”

All of these, even at the most basic level of peshat, can and do involved a great deal of intellectual effort and debate before one arrives at a final conclusion.”

So, each occasion Moses imparted to the Hebrews what God revealed, they applied a great deal of intellectual effort and debate before they arrived at a final conclusion. Is that perhaps the reason why they spent 40 years in the desert walking round in circles? Take, for example, the many occurrences of “Thus says the LORD (YHWH)” כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה, in Exodus 8:1: “And the LORD spake unto Moses, Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Let my people go, that they may serve me” (Exodus 8:1).

How did Pharoah react? Did he enter into an intellectual and linguistic debate with Moses on the deeper levels of meaning in the sentence “Let my people go” and in the letters of L-E-T? But then Pharoah wasn’t Jewish. (See my "Thus says the Lord in the Torah. And in the Prophets?"

In his “Approbation” of “Philistine and Palestinian” (1995) by Matityahu Glazerson (originally published in Hebrew a year earlier), the Johannesburg Rabbi J. Zalzer states:

Rabbi Glazerson disproves the tale that it makes no difference in which translation language you happen to read the “Bible” (Zalzer's inverted commas). He demonstrates that the Hebrew language possesses certain values which you hardly find elsewhere: a simple word expresses, in fact, deep ideas which the real meaning of the word includes. The Torah2 is not reading material for leisure, but needs much effort in order to be able to penetrate its real meaning and discover its real beauty beneath the surface.”

These deep ideas are, according to the Kabbalah, in the letters themselves. In the Preface (which contains an excerpt from “Letters of Fire”), Glazerson says:

The deeper significance of the letters and words is discussed extensively in the literature of Kabbalah. It is a subject as wide as all Creation. Every single letter points to a separate path by which the effluence3 of the divine creative force reaches the various sefirot (”spheres”) through which the Creator, Blessed be he, created His world.” Glazerson draws from “this store of knowledge regarding the varied significance of the Hebrew letters and words.”

Glazerson has a chapter “On the unique status of Hebrew, the Holy Tongue” (from Rabbis Moshe Cordovero's Pardes Rimonim4, Sha'ar Ha-Ottiot, Chapter 1). Here is an excerpt:

Many have supposed that the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are a matter of symbolic convention, that the Sages decided and agreed among themselves that certain signs would represent the sounds of speech....In the same way, other peoples also have symbolic representations for the sounds in other languages. According to this view, there is no difference between the Hebrew letters and the alphabets of other nations. The Hebrew letters are the conventional symbols used by the Israelite nation on the advice of Moshe through his prophetic inspiration, and the other alphabets are the conventional symbols of the other nations.”

Who but the ignorant would think that Hebrew is the product of Moses? Was there no Hebrew before Moses? But I don't want to get my linguistic knickers caught up in that particular bramble of a ramble. So let's move on to the nub of Rabbi Moshe's argument, which I paraphrase:

There are words and there are meanings. For example, if you've got a headache and swallow the instructions in your painkiller box, you'll end up with two aches, one in your head and one in your stomach. Moral of the story, don't swallow instructions, especially written ones – even if you can stomach them; swallow only what you're meant to swallow: the painkillers. Once you have understood the instructions on the pamphlet, you can throw it away. You can do that because it has no intrinsic importance in curing you of your headache. On the other hand, if you don't ensure that you understand the instructions, you could do yourself untold harm.

According to those who hold this pragmatic view of language - I'm still paraphrasing Rabbi Moshe Cordovero - as a vehicle that conveys ideas (that is, a form that expresses content), the Torah is to them like that pamphlet in the painkiller box, or like any medical textbook: “its purpose is to reveal the inner meanings and processes necessary for the perfection of the soul and if one does not master the required knowledge, he gains no benefit from his studies.” But Rabbi Moshe says that this pragmatic theory cannot be true because the

“Halachah obligates the reader to read the weekly portion, twice in the original Hebrew and once in the Aramaic translation, and this includes even seemingly meaningless place names (underlining added) such as Atarot and Divon (Bamidbar 32:3 “Numbers” 32:3)...The spiritual concept of each and every letter contains a glorious light, derived from the essence of the sefirot...each letter is like a splendid palace, containing and corresponding to its spiritual concept. When one of the letters is pronounced aloud, the corresponding spiritual force is necessarily evoked...these spiritual forces inhere not only in [the vocalized letters] but also in their written forms.”

So even when Glazerson says the words “seemingly meaningless”, the letters themselves (the phonemes and graphemes) in reality exude, Glazerson says, a “glorious light.” My view of the Bible (Tanakh and Newer Testament) is more prosaic and for all that more glorious, that is, it gives more glory to God. My view is that God reveals meanings through sounds (phonemes) and letters (graphemes), which are the building blocks of spoken and written words. The Bible is at bottom about repentance and how God reconciles the sinner to Himself. Simple but not simple-minded at all. The Jews of old looked for miraculous signs, the Greeks of old for wisdom. The Kabbalist looks for both: miraculous letters and the wisdom of the spheres. The grapheme by itself is no more meaningful than a rapheme is to Raphy (that’s me). Jews should not be ”spellbound” by names, nor by letters; many Jews, however, certainly are. Here is a useful summary of the issue:

“Interpreting Scripture from the method of PaRDeS often robs the Bible from its straightforward meaning, because the sod or hidden level is considered the ultimate as it is mystical and enables us to understand the so-called secrets of God. While so-called sod level interpretations have been able to tickle the ears of many in the Messianic movement, they often subtract the value of the Biblical text and its practical application for modern life. No longer do we have people examining the Tanach for what it is as narrative, history, prophecy, and wisdom literature, but people are searching it for hidden meanings. This means that when David struck down Goliath with a sling and five smooth stones, we cannot accept the text as meaning what it says, as there has to be a hidden, esoteric meaning behind it. Even worse, PaRDeS has been applied to parts of the Apostolic Scriptures by some Messianics, for which it has no remote context. Messianics who employ PaRDeS often fail to look at the New Testament for what it is as Gospels, history, and epistles. When Yeshua and His Disciples walk down a road together, it can no longer be treated as them walking down a road. What this does to us in the long run is reveal our inadequacy for using standardized hermenutics which examine literary structures in a Biblical text, taking into examination texts as a whole and its source language(s), in addition to required historical background information. Author Tim Hegg makes the following valid remarks in his workbook Interpreting the Bible: “It is therefore a mistake to think that such a hermeneutic was in place in the 1st Century, or somehow that Yeshua and His Apostles would have interpreted the Scriptures from this vantage point. To postulate such a scenario would be entirely anachronistic.”

Is it possible to be a Torah Jew without holding this “letters of fire” view of Hebrew? Very possible; indeed, you don’t have to know any Hebrew at all and still be a good Torah Jew. This applies not to the modern Jew but to Jews as early as the first century A.D. For example, while Josephus, who grew up in an Aramaic-Hebrew enviromment, was proficient in Hebrew, Philo, his predecessor, in contrast, probably knew, at best, a smidgen.

“Philo’s writings imply several things about the kind of teaching he and other children had in the synagogues of Alexandria. The first is that the Alexandrian synagogues primarily, if not exclusively, used the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Tanakh) as the basis of instruction rather than the Hebrew Bible. While Philo knew some standardized meanings for Hebrew words, his interpretations reflect a significant ignorance of the Hebrew language. His citations always come from a Greek translation”  (“A brief guide to Philo” By Kenneth Schenck, 2005, p.11).

Having said that, the form of words (in the Septuagint) were very important to Philo; for example, peculiarities in the singular or the plural, the verb tense, noun gender,  the presence or omission of the article.

Hegel uses the term aufhebung (“sublation”) to describe the dual nature of language – structure and meaning. In order to grasp the meaning, you need to let go (in your mind) of the structure. The structure must “die” to your consciousness so that the meaning may live. Yet without the structure, there would be no meaning. Language is like music: you have to learn the notes, but iof you want to play well you have to forget the notes. The notes are still there lurking in the subconscious. if you want to play fluently, you have to leave the notes behind you. If they pop back into the forefround while you’re playing, you could fudge it. I believe that the truth lies in the music of the Cross, not in the music of the spheres (sephirot).

“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians, 1:18-25).

See follow-on posts Digging below the surface of Torah, Midrash and Vulgate: When very good is evil
and The Slaughter of Isaac: An Axegesis of Laughter in Genesis.

1 mop – German for “bulldog face”. Roll mop – slimy silvery skin of a bulldog’s mug.

2 What about the rest of the “Bible” (Tanakh)?

3“Effluence’ is not a felicitous translation of the original. The word has three meanings: sewer water, waste water, and outpouring. The author obviously meant the third meaning. Unhappily, “effluence” is never used – this is the first time I have seen it used in such a manner – to mean “outpouring.” When I used “effluently” earlier on, I would assume that readers would get the sewer pun.

4 Pardes Rimonim ( פרדס רימונים ) (“Garden [of] Pomegranates”) of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, 16th century. Sha’ar Ha-Ottiot – Gate of letters.

is it possible to be a Torah Jew without holding this “letters of fire” view of Hebrew? I think it is very possible; indeed, you don’t have to know any Hebrew at all and still be a good Torah Jew. This applies not to the modern Jew but to Jews as early as the first century A.D. For example, while Josephus, who grew up in an Aramaic-Hebrew enviromment, Philo, his predecessor probably knew at best little Hebrew.”Philo’s writings imply several things about the kind of teaching he and other children had in the synagogues of Alexandria. The first is that the Alexandrian synagoues primarily, if not exclusively, used the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Tanakh) as the basis of instruction for instruction rather than the Hebrew Bible. While Philo knew some standardized meanings for Hebrew words, his interpretations reflect a signifcant ignorance of the Hebrew language. His citations alsways come from a Greek translation”  (“A brief guide to Philo” By Kenneth Schenck, 2005, p.11).