• The fact that evil confronts good, gives man the possibility of victory. —R. YECHIEL MICHAEL OF ZLOTSHOV, Hassidic Aphorism

Let us assume for a moment that the rabbis and the allegorical school are correct in identifying the serpent as a metaphor for the evil inclination. But why did God create the impulse for evil? Would humankind have been better off not having to deal with such an urge? The Zohar raises this question, and offers the reader a most intriguing thought-provoking response with respect to the phenomena of moral evil:[1]

• Should it be asked, “How can a man love Him with the evil inclination? Is not the evil inclination the seducer, preventing man from approaching the Blessed Holy One to serve him? How, then, can man use the evil inclination as an instrument of love for God?” The answer lies in this, that there can be no greater service done to the Holy One than to bring into subjection the “evil inclination” by the power of love to the Holy One, blessed be He. For, when it is subdued and its power broken by man in this way, then he becomes a true lover of the Holy One, since he has learned how to make the “evil inclination” itself serve the Holy One. Here is a mystery entrusted to the masters of esoteric lore. All that the Holy One has made, both above and below, is for the purpose of manifesting His Glory and to make all things serve Him. Now, would a master permit his servant to work against him, and to continually lay plans to counteract his will? It is the will of the Holy One that men should worship Him and walk in the way of truth that they may be rewarded with many benefits. How, then, can an evil servant come and counteract the will of his Master by tempting man to walk in an evil way, seducing him from the good way and causing him to disobey the will of his Lord? But, indeed, the “evil inclination” also does through this the will of its Lord.

• It is as if a king had an only son whom he dearly loved, and just for that cause he warned him not to be enticed by bad women, saying that anyone defiled might not enter his palace. The son promised his father to do his will in love. Outside the palace, however, there lived a beautiful harlot. After a while the King thought: “I will see how far my son is devoted to me.” So he sent to the woman and commanded her, saying: “Entice my son, for I wish to test his obedience to my will.” So she used every trick in her book to lure him into her embraces. But the son, being good, obeyed the commandment of his father. He refused her allurements and thrust her from him. Then did the father rejoice exceedingly, and, bringing him in to the innermost chamber of the palace, bestowed upon him gifts from his best treasures, and showed him every honor. And who was the cause of all this joy? The harlot! Is she to be praised or blamed for it? To be praised, surely, on all accounts, for on the one hand she fulfilled the king’s command and carried out his plans for him, and on the other hand she caused the son to receive all the good gifts and deepened the king’s love to his son.[2] Continue Reading

One critic of Augustine refused to accept such a pessimistic view of humankind. The Christian monk Pelagius taught his followers that Adam’s Fall did not directly affect his posterity at all, nor did the behavior of Adam and Eve spiritually transmit a disease to the human race. The primal parents’ sins affected only themselves. Every child born into the world is as Adam was at Creation: entirely innocent; each human being is born with the freedom to choose his or her own path in life.[1] Pelagius contends that Augustine’s doctrine of “sovereign grace” went against the biblical belief that God endowed humanity with natural goodness and free will. Even before the advent of Jesus, there were sinless and righteous human beings, “gospel men before the gospel,” such as Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and Job.[2] We owe much of the information we have about Pelagius to his critic Augustine, who preserved the words of his adversary:

• Sin is carried on only by imitation, committed by the will, denounced by reason, manifested by the law, punished by justice. . . . If sin is natural, it is not voluntary; if it is voluntary, it is not inborn. These two definitions are as mutually contrary as are necessity and free will. Adam was created mortal and would have died whether he sinned or not sinned; the sin of Adam injured only him, not the human race; the law leads to the kingdom of Heaven, just as the gospel does; even before the coming of Christ there were men without sin; newborn infants are in the same state which Adam was before his transgression; the whole human race does not die with the death and transgression of Adam, nor does it rise again through the resurrection of Christ. . . . One can be neither praised nor blamed, neither rewarded nor condemned, except for one’s own acts and self-acquired character, which must be within the compass of one’s ability. What is innate, inherent, or infused is clearly not within the power of the will, and therefore cannot have any moral character.[3]

For Pelagius, it was wrong to convict the entire human race because of one man’s sin. On numerous occasions, Augustine felt that Pelagius’s “Judaic”[4] ideas[5] threatened to undermine the authority of the Church and the Church’s claim that it alone could liberate man from the chains of Original Sin.[6] However, Pelagius countered that the Bible teaches that nature is good, as God created it to be, and that humankind is morally free to chart its own spiritual destiny, because human beings are fashioned in the likeness of the Divine image.

Since every human being derives his or her own essential goodness from God, therefore, no newborn infant deserves to be damned because of Adam’s sin. Moral goodness or evil are potentialities that each person can choose to realize. If we act righteously, we become righteous; if wickedly, we become wicked. Numerous Scriptural injunctions   make it perfectly clear that “Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death” (Deut. 24:16). This principle precludes the possibility of innate, hereditary depravity such as Original Sin.

The severity of Adam’s sin ought to be viewed in terms of the deed’s pedagogic effect. In effect, Adam becomes a poor role model for subsequent generations. Human corruption is due to the habit of evil that if left uncorrected, spreads like a contagion. Humans are born without virtue or vice, but have the capacity for either type of behavior.

Pelagius’s moral strictness is as exacting as it is demanding; his view of human nature is sober and grounded in reality. According to him, the onus of personal responsibility for all sins, both large and small, is upon each of us as individuals; hence there can be no excuse—not even for the most minor or venial of sins. It behooves everyone to know that sin involves a conscious and preventable defiance of God’s will; sin is, in the final analysis, an act of deliberate rebellion against God’s sovereignty and wisdom. Pelagius believes that even the smallest infraction—since it could be avoided—carries with it the possibility of eternal punishment.[7]

For Pelagius, God would never impose duties and responsibilities upon people that they could never possibly hope to fulfill. Without freedom of will, humankind is no better than moral idiots. The obligation to live a moral life is in accordance with individual ability. Deny a person of his freedom and capacity to act rationally, and one might just as well give license to all those who—much like the pre-converted youthful Augustine—behave with reckless abandon. After all, couldn’t he just as soon wait to “be saved” from Above after enjoying all of the tasty forbidden pleasures of this world? Why, asks Pelagius, should we bother avoiding the sins of this world if, in the final analysis, moral behavior doesn’t really matter—so long as one makes a declaration of faith in Christ? Conversely, Augustine counters that Pelagianism made the saving work of Christ unnecessary, that it undermined the central drama of the New Testament. Pelagius had made men independent of God in the sense that their salvation was entirely in their own hands.

Although historically Augustine’s view became normative theology for the next millennium and longer, still and all, Thomas Aquinas did not fully accept Augustine’s dim view of human nature. While it is true that human sinfulness weakens our innate capacity to live virtuously—sin, argues Aquinas, cannot eradicate the fact we are, in the final analysis, rational beings. Our human goodness cannot be fully extinguished. In the case of Adam, Original Sin causes him to lose the special gifts that enable him to sublimate and control his lower bodily functions.

Prior to his sin, Adam’s rational faculties were perfect. That being said, it is possible that this gift can be restored to us by supernatural grace alone for our human efforts to obtain salvation would always fall short of the divine benchmark. Naturally, reasons Aquinas, this infusion of special grace could never happen without the assistance of the Catholic Church and its rich sacramental system. Aquinas understands the implications of his doctrine, and how he virtually hedges on Pelagian teaching. Without the assistance of the Church, its capacity to function as an intermediary agency would have been undermined; its ecclesiastical ability would not have been able to function.[8]

Jewish thinkers concur with Pelagius’s position that no human being is tainted by the sins of Adam—but only by his own sinful deeds. Human nature was not at all corrupted, nor did a human being become an inherently immoral, “evil” creature, outside the realm of “grace” by merely being born. Each of us, through acts of will, freely decides our moral and spiritual destinies. Even when a person has sinned, that breach in his relationship with God is repairable through sincere penitence. Rather than pointing to human depravity, the rabbis sought to encourage their followers to adopt an optimistic approach, thus awakening the capacity for human goodness. The human instinct for pleasure and power becomes a problem only when it runs amok. There is no inherited predisposition that prevents us from becoming virtuous and pious. Only the quality of our behavior can determine whether the light of the Divine image will ever find its reflection in us.

===========

Hello again,

I hope you liked reading the article. Better still, I encourage you to consider purchasing my book,  “Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation Genesis 1-3, which is available at:

http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Rebirth-through-Genesis-Conversation/dp/1456301713/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309652244&sr=1-2.

===========

Notes:

[1] Notes: Like Pelagius before him, Immanuel Kant attacked the old Augustinian and Protestant view of Adam’s fall from grace, and said that the belief that sinfulness is passed on to a person’s posterity was nothing more than a superstition.

[2] See Augustine’s work The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins 1:30, 58; On the Baptism of Sins 4:24.31; 51.129.

[3] Translated by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1 The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1971), 315. Cf. Anti-Pelagian Writings 11:23 published in Vol. V of the Early Church Fathers Nicene–Post/Nicene Part I (New York: T. & T. Clark, 1887).

[4] Aside from some of the other Early Church Fathers, Pelagius’s views may have also been shaped by his encounters with rabbinic teachers from the Jewish community as he travelled through the Holy Land before settling in Rome. Jerome, who was also a contemporary of Pelagius, learned Hebrew from a rabbi in Palestine. It would seem that despite the polemically-charged era both faiths lived in, Jewish and Christian scholars exchanged theological views of the Bible in the spirit of fellowship and open-mindedness—millennia before the advent of modern Jewish-Christian interfaith relations.

[5]Augustine, ECF 2.5.0.0.3.3.

[6] Luther and Calvin understood original sin as “a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature” See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, (Edinburgh 1865, II .i.8). Unlike Augustine, Calvin relates Original Sin not so much to heredity, as to an ordinance of God, a heavenly decree from God passed on all humankind.

[7] With the exception of the Qumran Jewish community, Saadia Gaon and possibly Ramban, no other major Jewish theologian subscribed to the doctrine of “eternal damnation” or more precisely, “the soul that sins shall be cut off from its people” (Num. 15:30). See Ramban’s commentary on Leviticus 18:29.

[8] Thomas Aquinas, The Basic Writings of St Thomas Aquinas, ed. A. C. Pegis, 2 vols. ii. (New York: Random House, 1945); Summa Theologica, Part 1 Q. 81, Art. 1; Q. 85 Art. 2; Q. 85 Art. 3. See also F. C. Copleston, Aquinas (New York: Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1982), 156-98.

There is nothing in the Torah, or in the Talmud and Midrash, or Kabbala that would suggest that there is a supremely evil being that is determined to wage war against God. The noun “Satan” in the Tanakh simply means “adversary” or, “to oppose.” The Hebrew term appears in Numbers 22:22,32; 1 Samuel 29:4; 2 Samuel 19:22; 1 Kings 5:4; 11:14,23,25; Psalm 109:6, normally translated in English as adversary or accuser. In Job 1-2; Zechariah 3:2; and 1 Chronicles 21:1 the same term is translated as a proper name and designates the angel that acts as the “Public Prosecutor.”

The passage in 1 Chronicles 21:1 is based upon the parallel story in 2 Samuel 24:1, but it is God who entices David to count his people and not Satan! The Satanic angel who serves as Public Prosecutor is not an apostate nor is it some fallen being, an idea that is nowhere suggested in the Hebrew Bible. However, it is in the apocryphal books of the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls we find that Satan who is more commonly referred to as “Bliyal” (“the baseless one”), is portrayed as the “Adversary of God.”

Apocryphal literature later influenced the early Christian Bible. In the Book of John (16:11) for instance, Satan appears with a capital “S.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke clearly accept and teach a doctrine of a personal Satan and called the Satanic agents, “fallen angels” or “demons” (Mark 3:22). Sometimes referred to as Lucifer, Christian legends teach that Satan vaingloriously sought to overturn the regime in heaven and waged war against God’s loyalists. Defeated by the Archangel Michael, the angel who would be God was cast into his inferno, to brood in the darkness, “hatching vain empires.” Satan did not go unescorted, along with him went about a third of the heavenly host, a horde of fallen angels.

According to Christian doctrine, angels were created separately and were given free will, just as humans were. Their “fallenness” had to do with a denial and distortion of angelic life just as human fallenness has to do with the denial and distortion of goodness and truth. In contrast, normative Judaic faith teaches that only humanity was endowed with freedom of choices; angels are often described as “omdim” (beings who occupy a stationary position cf. Isaiah 6:2, Eze. 1:21-25, 10:3-6) while human beings are described as “mehalchim” (movers) for only human beings are capable of transcending their baser natures. Angels are often compared to animals (cf. Eze.1:5) because the character of angels is instinctive much like an animals’ instinct. Angels cannot help but be what God intended for them to be. Their being and personality are defined by their nature.

This may also explain why they are sometimes referred to as seraphim (“fiery ones”) as in Isaiah 6:2, because it is the nature of fire to ascend and so it is the angelic nature to also “ascend” to God much in the same manner. Other times angels are called, “hayoth” (= “animals”) as in Eze 1:5, 13, 32.

For poets like Milton, Satan is the archetypal antihero, the rebel who wages eternal guerrilla warfare against his Creator. One famous passage, contains the psychological animus that motivates Satan’s behavior: “ Better to reign is worth ambition though in hell: Better to reign in hell than serve in heav’n . . .”

Maimonides and rabbinic tradition took a much more sober view of Satan. Frequently Maimonides in his “Guide to the Perplexed” argues that Satan is only a metaphor for the evil inclination (Yetzser Hara) and is not a supernatural being. This has some basis in the Talmud (Cf. Bava Batra 16a) but many of the Talmudic rabbis did regard Satan as a supernatural being who serves God by testing humanity’s moral character. Rabbinic tradition even says that Satan’s intent is to serve Heaven, not itself!  R. Levi said, “Both Satan and Peninah both acted with pious intent.”[1] Continue Reading

There is an old question that is often asked, “When does human life begin?” Some would answer, “Life begins after the kids leave home and the dog dies.” However, the Talmudic thinkers took a more sober approach to this perennial question. Here is one of my favorite discussions from the Talmud that I believe ought to be discussed by Jews everywhere as it pertains to the modern medical ethical issue concerning abortion. As with every question of Halacha, there are many differing opinions ranging from the liberal to the conservative. There never has been complete unanimity on the status of the fetus in Halacha, and some of the rabbinical antecedents found in the Talmud and Mishnah differ from the specific case we shall now examine:

 Antoninus said to Rabbi, “At what point is the soul placed in man? Is it at the moment that it is conception [that the person shall be born] or is it at the time when the embryo is formed?”

Rabbi: “From the moment when it is formed.”

Antoninus: “Is it possible that a piece of flesh should keep for three days of it is not salted and not become rotten? Rather, it should be from the time at which it is decreed [that the person should come into being.”

 Rabbi: “This is something that Antoninus taught me, and a verse of Scripture supports his view, for it is said, ‘And your decree has preserved my soul’ (Job. 10:12).”

 Then Antoninus said to Rabbi, “At what point does the impulse to do evil take hold of a man? Is it from the moment of creation or from the moment of parturition?”

Rabbi: “It is from the moment of creation.”

Antoninus:“If so, the fetus will kick its mother’s womb and escape. Rather, it is from the moment of parturition.” Continue Reading

Oftentimes people get upset whenever someone says the Bible contains “myth.” I would argue that this is usually because many people have a shallow understanding of what exactly “myth” really is. While the term “myth” is commonly used to mean a false belief, religious studies scholars use it to refer to narratives that are believed to be true by adherents of a particular tradition.

In anthropological terms, myth reveals the presence of the sacred in a manner that is transhistorical and this quality is what defines it as a lived reality. Eliade further argues that the sacred does not exist as a dimension that is apart from the profane[1], but indeed exists within it, and is capable of manifesting itself at any time or moment.

This explains why the sacred participates in the fullness of being, unlike the profane that is circumscribed by the boundaries of ordinary time and space.

Myth connects the present day reality with the seminal events of a prehistorical past. Accordingly, mythical consciousness thrives in the immediacy of the present rather than in the past; both the symbol and the symbolized co-exist on a single plane of existence. It is important to add, as the renowned psychologist C. G. Jung (1875-1961) explains: “The primitive mentality does not invent myths, it experiences them. Myths are original revelations of the preconscious psyche. Many of these unconscious processes may be indirectly occasioned by consciousness, but never by conscious choice. Others appear to arise spontaneously, that is to say, from no discernible or demonstrable conscious cause.”[2]

From a different perspective, Eliade asserts that myth flourishes in the face of mystery and awesome incomprehension. Mythic stories invite people to let go of themselves to their immediacy and transcendence. One of the chief characteristics of creation stories in particular is that:

[The myth is an] irruption of the sacred into the world . . . that establishes the world as reality. Every myth shows how a reality came into existence, whether it be the total reality, the cosmos, or only a fragment—an island, a species of plant, a human institution. To tell how things came into existence is to explain them and at the same time indirectly to answer another question: Why did they come into existence? The “why” is always implied in the “how”—for the simple reason that to tell how a thing was born is to reveal an eruption of the sacred into the world, and the sacred is the ultimate cause of all existence.[3]

In truth, myth has never been meant to explain empirical facts about the natural world, but rather aims to disclose the sacred meaning that is present within the natural observable universe. To a mythical imagination, reality is experienced as a living presence and process. Consequently, myth influences and molds contemporary reality; it shapes the destiny of individuals, religions, and nation-states. Psychologist Rollo May points out in one of his last but most provocative books, The Cry for Myth, that myths unite the contradictions and antinomies of life whether they be conscious or unconscious, historical or present, social or individual. “Whereas empirical language refers to objective facts, myth refers to the quintessence of human experience, the meaning and significance of human life. The whole person speaks to us, not just to our brain.”[4] According to anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942), myth is relevant and contemporaneous with the primordial events that originate in the psyche of primal man:

Studied alive, myth, as we shall see is not symbolic, but a direct expression of its subject matter; it is not an explanation in satisfaction of a scientific interest, but a narrative resurrection of a primeval reality, told in satisfaction of deep religious wants, moral cravings, social submissions, assertions—even practical requirements. Myth fulfills in primitive culture an indispensible function: it expresses, enhances, and codifies belief; it safeguards and enforces morality; it vouches for the efficiency of ritual and contains practical rules for the guidance of man. Myth is thus a vital ingredient of human civilization; it is not an idle tale, but a hard-worked force; it is not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery, but a pragmatic charter of primitive faith and moral wisdom.[5]

If myth figures so prominently in the early Genesis stories, how is one to understand the host of human personalities that populate the “mythical” landscape? Did Adam, Eve, Noah and his children, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and a host of other biblical personalities in Genesis live in the world of real time? The Founding Fathers of Genesis may very well have been genuine historical figures, but that debate is almost totally irrelevant. Rollo May correctly observes, “It does not matter in the slightest whether a man named Adam and a woman named Eve ever existed or not; the myth about them in Genesis still presents a picture of the birth and development of human consciousness which is applicable to all people of all ages and religions.”[6] Continue Reading

In this section, I shall attempt to define an alternative perspective that reconciles tradition with the realistic problem in presenting a cogent theodicy for today. As I have pointed out in my new Genesis commentary, God creates a relational type of world where human beings must become stewards of God’s Creation. In terms of a biblical theology, the book of Genesis merely states that God made a very good world,” after beholding His greatest masterpiece–man! Note that nowhere does the Torah indicate that Creation is “perfect,” it is merely very good.

Yet, for all the beauty the world contains, only humankind can improve upon God’s original Creation. This point is very significant, for as R. Moshe Chayim Luzzato (18th century) observes, God did not create human beings to be mere receivers of God’s blessings, but to be dispensers of God’s blessings.

From this point we may assume that since Creation is far from perfect, the moral evolution of our planet is contigent upon human acts of kindness and compassion. As Augustine correctly observes, “evil is a privation (i.e., an absence) of good.” Let us reformulate Augustine’s definition of evil: Evil arises from human thoughtlessness.

Perhaps we might say in modern theological terms that evil occurs whenever human malevolence or indifference arises. With respect to the Holocaust, the theological question is not, “Where was God?” but as Heschel masterfully observed, “Where was man?” Martin Luther King Jr’s words offer us guidance how to combat this problem: “To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it.  We must never feel that God will, through some breathtaking miracle or a wave of the hand, cast evil out of the world. As long as we believe this, we will pray unanswerable prayers and ask God to do things that he will never do. The belief that God will do everything for a man is as untenable as the belief that man can do everything for himself.”

In a relational universe, God respects human freedom, but ultimately how we respond to cry of the oppressed and suffering does not depend upon God, but upon us–as God’s stewards of Creation. Natural law does not mean that God does not act, but that God acts in conjunction with His junior partner–humankind.  One of the important lessons Liberation Theology teaches us is that we cannot abdicate our responsibility unto God; we are responsible for the moral problems of our world; we are likewise responsible for how we respond even to natural evil as well. In the case of the recent Carmel forest-fire, we saw unusual cooperation take place, e.g., Russia, Turkey, even the Palestinians (!) participated together in putting this fire out.

But what about the human factors that contributed to the conflagration? Was it an act of terrorism? The evidence is unclear at the present moment. Some individuals have been arrested for arson. But what really puzzles me is the Haredi reaction. The Haredi scholars are quick to look at what they believe to be the “religious reasons,” because they believe that the world is like a mighty chain, where every deed impacts the other. While this perspective requires more of a metaphysical belief in causation, I prefer to look at the more mundane causes of a disaster that involve human volition and responsibility.

An Israeli Shas minister named Eli Yishai has taken a lot of heat (pardon the pun) for not spending more money on purchasing more fire-trucks to help combat forest fires. Yishai claims that he fought hard with the Finance Minister just to obtain the same amount of money that previous administrators had received. One thing is certain: a committee will be assigned with the task of researching how this terrible fire that resulted in the death of 40 soldiers and 2 firemen might have been avoided.

It might seem at first blush that Yishai’s culpability remains a question mark at this point. However, there is one part of the story that strongly suggests that human foolishness played a major role in the Carmel forest fire and the evidence against Yishai seems very damning,

A well-known Jewish and Christian group called the “International Fellowship of Christians and Jews,” headed by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, donated eight fire-trucks that might have been used to quell the fires from the very beginning. However, MK Eli Yishai refused to accept these trucks because they came from an interfaith group that is trying to improve relationships between Jews and Christians.

The underfunded Fire and Rescue Service could have used this equipment to make a difference. Interestingly, Rabbi Eckstein (who is an Orthodox rabbi), remarked that Yishai’s religious-based rejection of contributions from non-Jewish sources led to the termination after the group had completed delivery of eight fire trucks last year in a donation that had been okayed by Yishai’s predecessor, MK Meir Sheetrit (Kadima). “Since that time, under Yishai we have not received any further requests from the ministry because of the way they perceive us . . .So we could have had more trucks than those we already delivered.” (Emphasis added).

Continue Reading

Available Now!

Well, the time has come for me to start promoting my new book: Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation Part 1: Genesis 1-3.

You can purchase the book at a nice discount at Amazon.com

You can also get it at Barnes and Nobles. For me, writing a book is a lot like giving birth to a baby–for we create from the depths of our own being and essence. Creativity offers a remarkable pathway to discovering how God speaks and inspires our soul.

**PURIM SPECIAL ** Buy it now, you can get it for $20.70 at the following link:

http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Rebirth-through-Genesis-Conversation/dp/1456301713/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1323359269&sr=8-2

Reviews:

“. . . all who carefully read this book are in for a deeply rewarding experience. . . .”—Prof. Marvin R. Wilson, Author of Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith“

A fascinating, learned, and wide-ranging commentary that creatively blends the insights of ancients, medievals, moderns, and post-moderns. . .Readers will enjoy this book.”
—Prof. Warren Zev Harvey, [Chair, Department of Jewish Thought],The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

“ The book is a profound exploration of the important metaphors, symbols and archetypal structures of Genesis. . . . Most remarkable about this stunning array of insights is that it leaves space for personal discovery, and time to hear the beat of heart-thoughts behind the words.”
—Paul Pines, author of My Brother’s Madness

“ [Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation] is spiritually fresh and relevant for a new generation of readers regardless of their religious background and faith.”
—Rabbi Dr. Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, co-author of Jewish with Feeling

“While this is a book written by a rabbi well-versed in the rabbinic tradition, one cannot read more than a few pages to discover that his research, his interests, and his appreciation of critical thought span the centuries of both Jewish thought and Christian, while encompassing the best of the non-faith-bound philosophers of these same millennia. . . . Rabbi Samuel is fearless in drawing on their works and their thinking in order to provoke his reader to leap beyond the well-worn paths of the past.”
—Allan C. Emery III, PhD, Senior Editor of Hendrickson Publishers.

“. . . span[s] the centuries of both Jewish thought and Christian, while encompassing the best of the non-faith-bound philosophers of these same millennia. . . . Rabbi Samuel is fearless in drawing on their works and their thinking in order to provoke his reader to leap beyond the well-worn paths of the past.”
—Paul Borgman, author of David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story

“Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis . . . adroitly moderates a virtual conver-sation between traditions and thinkers. This book is a wondrous springboard into a rewarding dialogue between biblical scholarship and the philosophical perspective.”
—Micah D. Halpern, author of THUGS, The Micah Report, and Jewish Legal Writings by Women

Get your copy today!

Last night, at my doorstep I discovered the first printed volume of my new Genesis commentary, “Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis: The Timeless Theological Conversation.”  The package came to me as a surprise, I wasn’t quite sure when the new book would actually arrive. Like a proud father, I thanked God for helping me to celebrate this fragment of time in my lifetime. There are still a few corrections I need to make, such as adding the name of my newest grandchild–a baby girl named Zoe! Yes, life is good and even sweet. Amazon will be featuring the book within the next month or so; I am planning on releasing a new soft-covered version of the book as well, which should reduce the price of the book considerably  for consumers.

This summer I have been working on a another book, whose title I will not mention at the present; this new book promises that will reflect upon the theme and nature of Judaic wisdom in a manner that is elegant–even simple. Stayed tuned in for more!

=====

Well, writing a book is a lot like giving birth to a baby. Granted, being a male member of the human species prevents me from ever having such an experience, but true creativity derives from the depths of our being. This topic reminds me about a remarkable topic in Jewish philosophy that I will share with my readers regarding the nature of human and Divine creativity. Are they the same? In what ways do they differ? In Part I of this essay, we will examine one way of approaching the issue.

Sheneir Zalman (1745-1812) attempts to differentiate between human versus Divine creation. Here is one passage from the Tanya that I have recently translated that will hopefully clarify this topic.

 Let this point serve as an answer to the deists, who deny God’s creation. . . .  In their error, they foolishly imagine that creation is akin to the work and design of mortals as when a smith completes fashioning a vessel, that vessel no longer requires the smith to ensure its existence. Even when its maker is physically removed from it, the vessel remains intact—just as it was when he fashioned it. By the same token, these thinkers foolishly imagine that since heaven and earth exist, the cosmos no longer depends upon the Creator for its raison d’être.

 However, their eyes are covered for they do not differentiate between Divine and human creativity; the latter consists of improving upon something that is already in existence; that is to say, human creativity can only change an object’s form and appearance. Returning to our original analogy of the smith, he merely takes a silver ingot and transforms it into a vessel. Human creativity always consists of altering the form of some pre-existing matter. . . .  After finishing his handiwork, the smith leaves it alone to its own device. Similarly, the smith knows that once his work is finished, it no longer requires his attentiveness . . .  

 . . . In contrast, God’s creation is different. He literally wills the cosmos into being from a state of utter non-being. In reality, physical existence is a novelty that occurs each moment of its duration. . . . If this creative flow ceases—even for a single moment—everything that exists would instantaneously return to its original state of non-being. From this perspective, one must say that creatio ex nihilo is a far greater miracle than even the Splitting of the Sea of Reeds (Exod. 14:21-22; 15:8). For in this case, God merely drove back the sea through the force of a strong east wind that blew throughout the night. The waters at the Sea of Reeds stood immediately erect as if they   were a wall. Had God withdrawn the wind, the waters would instantly revert to their natural flowing state. . . . The element of novelty was obvious to all who witnessed the miracle, they recognized how the Divine power kept the water’s temporary structure intact. . . . However, after the last of the Israelites finished crossing, the waters of the Sea of Reeds reverted back to its natural state. What is true with regard to a great biblical miracle applies all the more so when comparing it to a miracle like Creation. The entire cosmic reality depends upon its Creator to provide it with being each moment it exists. . . . Ethereal letters expressed by the Divine Word continue animating and renewing Creation for all time. This would explain why the Psalmist proclaims, “Your Word stands in the Heavens. . . .” (Psa. 33:6) Continue Reading

The book is inching closer toward publication. We are hoping for a late April date.

=======================

Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis. . . adroitly moderates a virtual conversation between traditions and thinkers. This book is a wondrous springboard into a rewarding dialogue between  biblical scholarship and the philosophical perspective.

Micah D. Halpern, author of THUGS, The Micah Report, and Jewish Legal Writings by Women

“A fascinating, learned, and wide-ranging commentary that creatively blends the  insights of ancients, medievals, moderns, and post-moderns. . .Readers will enjoy this book.”

Prof. Warren Zev Harvey, [Chair, Department of Jewish Thought], The Hebrew University of Jerusalem ,

===========

I believe that all who carefully read this book are in for a deeply rewarding experience. A study of the text and commentary of Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: The Timeless Theological Commentary will contribute greatly to an understanding of the rich and diverse fabric of biblical narrative and provide an appreciation for its creative application to the problems of the modern world . . . Birth and Rebirth through Genesis is a book for Jews and Christians.

Prof. Marvin R. Wilson, Author of Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith

===========

The book is a profound exploration of the important metaphors, symbols and archetypal structures of Genesis. . . Most remarkable about this stunning array of insights is that it leaves space for personal discovery, and time to hear the beat of heart-thoughts behind the words.

Paul Pines, author of My Brother’s Madness. Continue Reading