Outros artigos deste número | Versão em inglês | Versão em Francês

Man and God: A Jewish Perspective
Daniel Gottlieb

While preparing my talk I felt a certain apprehension at the idea of giving it after two series of lectures. As I had expected, the previous speakers could not talk of « man and creation » or « man and society » without mentioning God, so I shall doubtless be obliged to repeat certain ideas about God that have already been put forward. In discussing the relation between man and God, I shall certainly have to touch on some themes already developed in connection with creation and society. I ought perhaps to regret inflicting these repetitions on you, but in a sense it is good to have the opportunity of enabling you to realize that, in biblical thought, it is impossible to disassociate the different elements that constitute man's environment. To illustrate this point I shall simply add that though the relationship between God and man expresses itself naturally in terms of religion, there is in Hebrew no word to convey the idea of « religion », a fact which implies that the notion is fundamentally foreign to the Jewish consciousness. This means that for the Bible — and consequently for Judaism — man is never before God only; God is always present to his mind in all the particular, concrete and precise situations in which he finds himself.

After having accepted the risk of repeating what has already been said, I come up against another more serious and more fundamental difficulty. My talk is entitled « Man and God from a Jewish point of view »; but each of these two terms is the object of study in a different discipline, a different science, neither of which seems to me to belong directly to the specific domain of Jewish thought. Philosophy is concerned with the human condition, and theology seeks to define the criteria to which God must conform if he is to exist. The essential concern of Judaism is man's behavior on earth with relation to the moral, social and ritual demands of the Torah. In other words, the problem that the Bible and Judaism aim at resolving is that of the coexistence of man and God. It is moreover necessary to define what we mean by « man and what we mean by « God », and also to determine the content of the harmony that should be established between them, since the general theme of our meeting is « in the perspective of the Kingdom ».

Some people will perhaps say that they have heard of a « Jewish philosophy ». A theological or philosophical dimension does in fact exist in the Jewish interpretation of Scripture, as social and moral values exist in Judaism. However, these different aspects cannot be disassociated from each other; it is essential not to lose sight of the fact that the Bible presents man and the world as a global entity. This is why I could not adopt in my presentation a purely philosophical, theological or metaphysical position.

I could doubtless have stood at a distance from by subject, studying it from « the outside ». I could have spoken objectively and scientifically of Jewish history and philosophy. I could have made an objective analysis of the external influences brought to bear on Jewish thought throughout the centuries; but this procedure could not have been authentically Jewish. We are well aware that there is place in Judaism for intellectual and affective attitudes that could be situated in those currents of thought that one is tempted to label « rationalistic » or « mystical ». However, this must not make us forget that until a relatively recent past (which could be schematically dated as immediately following the emancipation of the Jews), all Jewish thought was based on the methods of applying the Law. Fidelity to the demands of a specific code of behavior has always been the only common factor in all the ideological tendencies that have manifested themselves within Judaism. On these gronds I could say that my grandmother was not a philosopher, in the academic sense of the word (she had no degree); but she lived her Judaism intensely and this gave her a healthy philosophy of life, authentically Jewish. When she went shopping she made sure that the ma'aser had been deducted from the money in her purse (I am convinced that he who tithes his salary or his income before making personal profit has a much healthier attitude to money than one who knows by heart whole books on « capital ». He knows that he is merely the user of the goods placed at his disposition. He knows that the Creator of the goods of this world is and remains their lawful owner [cf. Ps 24:1] and can consequently legislate for the use to which they are put). My grandmother bought only kasher goods; this means that she was permanently aware of the content of revelation. She liked to prepare dishes to give pleasure to the members of her family because she knew that the enjoyment of material goods is not merely a concession to man's appetite: she understood, naturally and spontaneously, that God delights in giving pleasure to his creatures. She often cooked traditional dishes according to the calendar, and through the customs that originated in folklore, she indirectly recalled the collective history of the people of Israel. When cooking she naturally provided for the guests who arrived at the last minute and for the poor who knocked at her door, because hospitality and solidarity were to be concrete and permanent realities.

I have said enough about my grandmother. I simply wanted to show how the application of the details of the Law in the most ordinary situations goes far beyond the ritual framework. It transmits the permanent values of Judaism much better than the most brilliant abstract speculation.

In spite of the difficulties to which I have alluded, I begin my presentation with the feeling that it will not be too difficult to make myself understood, even if I have to express in French ideas that come to me in Hebrew. Though we do not speak the same « tongue », we have simultaneous translation (and I want to congratulate the translators for I know how hard their work is). Above all, we have a common language — that of the Bible; for us all, Jews and Christians, the books of the Bible are « revealed », « inspired » (the terms we shall use and their shades of meaning are of little importance). Holy Scripture contains the message given by God to man; it is our only source of information, the starting point of all our reflection.

Creation of man

Let us then see what the Bible says to man. From the first chapters, it teaches us that man was created, created by God. « It is a privilege for man to have been created by God and in God's image, » says Rabbi Akiva, « but it is a still greater privilege for him to have been able to learn that he has been created by God, and in God's image. It is therefore essential for man to know his divine origin; even though he is the highest form of creation he must recognize that he is only a creature among other creatures. The human condition is complex, paradoxical. Man bears within himself a divine spark, and the world was created for him (he penetrates it only when the framework of his existence, the universe, has been completed); yet, on the other hand, he is nothing. Should he begin to overestimate his value he could be reminded that the ant existed before him. This contradiction in human nature was expressed in the psalm that was recited this morning (8:4, 5). On the one hand: « What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him? », and on the other: « Thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor ... »

Man thus occupies a very special, a unique place in creation; he is half-way between the animals, with which he has (according to the Midrash) three points in common, and the angels, with whom he has also three points in common (of these I shall mention only one: that he speaks the sacred language, Hebrew). There is, however, one point on which man is superior to the angels, who (if they exist at all, but it is not necessary to go into the question of their existence now) live in immediate proximity with God and cannot help singing the praises of the Creator. Since they are not « free » to do otherwise, they have no merit in this. Man, on the contrary, was created free; according to the use he makes of the life granted to him, he can merit his right to exist, in philosophical terms, to transform his « having » into « being ».

Without dwelling further on this point, let us state that the biblical account of creation teaches us two essential lessons: the personal value of each individual, of each human being (God created only one man and hence every human being is a whole universe), and the unity of the human race (all men have one and the same father). So true is this that ben Azzai, disciple and friend of Rabbi Akiva, could say that the verse of the Bible containing the most important lesson of all is that which introduces the long list of the names of the descendants of the first man (Gen 5: 1): « This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God », as if to say that we must never forget that the history of Adam's descendants, the history of man, the history of humanity is biblical history. This can be confirmed by the fact that at the very end of the account of creation the biblical text states that what God has created must be completed: « . . . asher bara Elohim la'asot » (Gen 2:3). Everything takes place as if God had confided to man the task of perfecting the work of creation and of leading creation to its fulfilment.

Adam — humanity — Son of Man

It is fitting to stress here the relationship which unites the individual with the group to which he belongs and makes him an active part of it, representing and recapitulating in himself the sum of the characteristics of that whole of which he is part. There is clear evidence of this idea in the Jewish reading of the Hebrew text of the Bible, where it is often difficult — sometimes impossible — to know whether the reference is to a person or to a group designated by the same name. It is not necessary to refer to the example of « Israel », which is used sometimes for the person of Jacob (who in certain situations is called « Israel »), and sometimes for the family of his biological children or his spiritual descendants (cf. benei Israel). It is already clear that, according to circumstances, « Adam » designates « the first man » (allow me to call him « Mr. Adam »), or « the man » (each man, each individual), or Man (with a capital M, meaning the human family in its totality, the human species, the whole of humanity). Thus, for example, when we were speaking this morning of Adam's attempts to make bread, it was impossible to know if the reference was to « Mr. Adam » or the the first generations of mankind in the course of their technical progress. This is of no importance to us, since in writing the history of « Adam », the Bible is telling us of the history of mankind. We could explicitate this theme further by drawing attention to the fact that the biblical account of the creation does not say: « vayehi erev vayehi boker yom ha ha-shevii », that the « evening », the beginning of the seventh day has come. Everything takes place as if the « sixth day » of creation was not finished, not accomplished, as if the history of humanity constituted the vicissitudes of the last stage of creation in its journey towards the « definitive and collective Shabbat » (this expression is used to designate the universal harmony of the « times to come », that is, the messianic age).

In this perspective the verse « na'ase Adam » (Gen 1:26) could be interpreted as God asking his human creatures to help him make « ADaM », the final and perfected form of that humanity whose potentiality « Mr. Adam » contained before the fall (some think he could have become the Messiah). His virtualities and potentialities continue to be borne by « Adam », the family of his descendants.

The better to explain this idea of the actuality of the biblical account — certainly the most difficult to communicate — I would like to explain the meaning of the episode of « Adam's sin » which the Bible describes in such detail. Adam had been placed in a garden where all the trees were alike; of one, however, he was forbidden to eat anything. He gave way to the temp-tation of defining objectively, rationally, the criteria of his action. Notice, in passing, that at the end of this episode « the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them » (Gen 3:21). The function of the garment seems to have been to prevent man from giving way to temptation, to elaborate an autonomous morality, based only on the criteria of his objective reason. In the final analysis, the only difference between the human species and the animal species is that man is clothed: all men have to interpose criteria of a moral or social order before their actions. They should consider these criteria in the awareness that they are clothed. (When I don't want to forget something important I make a knot in my handkerchief; everything happens as if Adam had no handkerchief and God gave him one to serve as a reminder.)

Let us compare this with Numbers 15:37-41: the biblical account is interrupted by the paragraph commanding the children of Israel to wear the ritual fringes. The fault of the scouts as they accepted the exploratory mission proposed to them lay in considering the possibility of placing themselves in strictly objective categories with regard to the land of Israel. « . . . And it shall be to you a tassel to look upon and remember » confirms the significance-content of the garment or of certain particularities of clothing. Man is not an exclusively rational being, all-powerful because of his intelligence; he has no right to forget the limitations of his condition, and the wearing of clothes should remind him of this. By reciting each morning while dressing a blessing for garments ( . . . malbish arumim), I express the fact that a garment is not merely an object: it is an « it-plus », to use a formula become familiar to us during these two days — an object, certainly, but an object with a significance-content.

In the same way, Adam represents not only the first man but also the whole of humanity from the beginning to the end of time. This idea is expressed in numerous easily accessible midrashim. I shall quote only one, according to which the name ADaM evokes, by its consonants, the succession of generations from Adam through David to the Messiah.

Adam, (like other biblical characters (could have been the Messiah. Messianism could have been realized from the beginning of history, but Adam sinned; it is therefore the task of his descendants to make reparation for his fault, to bring about harmony by giving birth to the « Son of Man », that is to say, to a humanity that comes up to God's expectations. The Messiah will come when all the souls that God intended to create have become incarnate, when all the positive potential in Adam has been realized: Adam is found in each man and each man is like Adam.

People of Israel

A minute ago I mentioned David, king of Israel. Much thought should certainly be given to the problem of the election: to know whether Israel is part of the project of creation or whether Abraham was chosen (arbitrarily or because of his merit) to save humanity from prolonging the list of successive failures it experienced when left to itself. Remember in particular that the seven Noachide laws given to all men after the Flood were not respected. Some time afterwards, the episode of the Tower of Babel led to the dramatic rupture of the human family; this rent is a wound that human history must heal by re-forging the unity that has been broken, that is to say, by recovering a common language (cf. Gen 11:1 and Zeph 3:9).

The mission conferred by God on a people, the people of Israel, is to witness on earth to unity (cf. Is 43:10). Everything takes place as if Israel were witnessing to a way of being human that incarnates and concretizes the totality of the human values proposed to Adam. Israel, in its collectivity, is called « Adam » (Ezek 34: 31; cf. Yev. 61a) and constitutes that intermediary stage of the history of ADaM which leads to messianism.

God does in fact reveal himself, and it is important to notice that he reveals himself not so much as creator but as « the one who has freed his people from the slavery of Egypt » (Ex 20:2). He reveals himself also as lawgiver. To say that Israel bears witness to the unity or to the oneness of God is to express a concrete idea in abstract categories. The God of creation and the God of revelation are the same God; this implies man's recognition of the links uniting history with the moral code and his acceptance of the foundations of revealed morality. The immutable laws of the universe (OLaM) are in danger of disguising (ALeM) the origin of their being. Man's role is to discern, through the web of history, that Nature is a Creation. His obvious duty will be to act in conformity with his convictions.

It is certainly from this point of view that the contents of the Law are enlightening: the biblical legislation to which Israel is submitted offers a way of life that harmoniously takes into account all the elements of man's environment without neglecting any. I do not think it would be useful to speak of mitsvot at this point except to say that they give to those who accomplish them the opportunity of thinking of God, of « blessing » him a hundred times a day (cf. Deut 10:12). Paradoxical as it may seem, God needs to be blessed by his creatures: but at the same time, because he recites the blessing, man is enabled to be united with his divine origin.

In liturgical or ritual situations, for example, the accomplishment of a mitsvah entails the recitation of a blessing, expressing man's gratitude to God who has shown him the attitudes that find favor in his sight. To celebrate a religious anniversary is also to affirm that history has a meaning, in every sense of the word: content, significance and direction.

In the same way, every moment can be an opportunity for directing our thoughts to God. To profit from the satisfaction offered us is to be able to give thanks to the Creator. This is doubtless the explanation of the talmudic text which tells us what we shall have to render an account before the tribunal of heaven for all the lawful pleasures which we have failed to enjoy (« lawful pleasures »: the limitations imposed are both to prevent man from becoming enslaved to his passions and to sublimate objects by the way in which they are used). Let us illustrate this point by an anecdote: Rabbi Gamaliel the Elder was walking on the Temple mount and saw a beautiful woman. He did not hesitate to recite a blessing to thank God for having put such beautiful creatures on the earth he had created. Yes, in Jewish thought to take pleasure in the things of this world, respecting at the same time the universal harmony, is to recognize the benefits of the Creator; it is a mitsvah.

To understand the existence of a law concerning things, and the ways of applying this law, it would certainly be useful to know the significance-content of the objects that surround us. In our desacralized civilization the only « object » which calls forth legislation (explicit, or non-explicit because it is obvious) is the flag. The flag is not merely a piece of cloth, it is not merely a symbol, it is an « it-plus » (to use the consecrated formula. This is why I prefer to talk of « significance-content » rather than symbol. It is a pity that we have no time to discover the significance-content of the most ordinary things whose ritual legislation we know: the essential foods, wine and bread (with the laws of kashrut). However, as an illustration and very quickly, I would like to point out that the significance possessed by things is paralleled by the concretization of abstract ideas in the Bible through the attitudes imposed on the prophets. Thus the fact that Ezekiel, the prophet of the exile, had to eat, before the people, bread cooked on dung, explains more clearly than the most eloquent discourses the pathological character of the life of the people of Israel on a land other than the land of Israel.

Observance of the Law implies knowledge of or search for its significance-content (without which Judaism would be merely formal ritualism, condemned by the rabbis in terms analogous to those of the Sermon on the Mount).

«Holiness »

It is self-evident that the witness given by any individual is very limited in its scope. We must therefore not forget that, although each member of the community of Israel is obliged to observe the Law, it is the « mystical body of the Synagogue » — knesset Israel, the collectivity of Israel — which has been invested as a people with the role of « witness ». It is particularly noticeable that the idea of kedusha, «holiness », applies to the « holy people ». Nowhere in the Bible does this adjective qualify a person and nowhere in the Torah is there to be found a positive mitsvah allowing an individual to reach holiness.

The only personal situation to be affected by the idea of kedusha is marriage (in Hebrew kiddushin). The conjugal relationship, the covenant contracted by the spouses, « represents », « symbolizes » or « materializes » the covenant entered into between God and his people (throughout the whole biblical literature this latter is expressed in terms of the matrimonial or conjugal relationship). Not only objects but lived situations also bear within themselves significance-contents referring to biblical notions. The aim of the experience imposed on the prophet Hosea, his marriage to a prostitute (cf. Hos 1 and 3), is to give a concrete, perceptible and striking form to the feelings provoked in God (if one can express it thus) by the infidelity of Israel, his earthly partner. Awareness of his reality should lead to the fidelity which God expects from his people. It is also noteworthy that the ceremony constituting a Jewish couple man and wife is in its three essential parts a recapitulation of the three stages of God's covenant with his people. By standing under the nuptial canopy in a position inspired by the Song of Songs 2:6, the betrothed pair already indicate their will that their union in the flesh should be inspired by what the Bible says of the mystical union of God with his people. The giving of the ring corresponds with the gift of the land to Abraham. The reading of the ketubbah (religious marriage contract) is a figure of the promulgation of the Torah containing the mutual obligations undertaken by God and by his people. The Hebrew word used for what is delicately referred to in English as the « consummation of the marriage » is one that suggests the idea of « penetration » (biah). It corresponds with the entrance of the people into the land of Israel, the land inhabited by God, the land where God and men meet, the marriage chamber of the couple God-People. (Note that, for the Talmud, it was the conquest of the land at the time of Joshua, the first penetration by the people, which conferred on the land its character of holiness.)

This Israel became a holy people or, more exactly, a consecrated people. However, the question still remanins: does the « people of Israel » already exist? To explain: the names of the biblical characters are also the family names of their descendants. Each of these families incarnates a way of life of which its founder was the model. It would be interesting — but lack of time prevents it — to find out from biblical and midrashic sources what Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, Jacob, Israel, etc., represent; to seek, beyond the individual who was the first to bear the name, ways of being a man which in history go beyond the time of this individual's earthly existence. We must remember indeed that, in Jewish thought, the words of the Hebrew language are not simple conventions; they contain the significance-content of the object that they designate. Thus, for Judaism the reality and the symbol evoked by it cannot be disassociated. In the same way, abstractions and symbols are always associated with the concrete reality in which they are incarnated. I can never stress this point enough.

The way of being a man — the witness to God lived out by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — should result in the establishment of the people of Israel. The rabbis, realizing that the biblical text does not explicitly formulate this idea, could say: « Jacob is not dead. » This means that the change of name imposed on the third patriarch was not definite during his life-time; it is for his descendants to realize, to accomplish the passage from Jacob to Israel. If, etymologically, « Jacob » evokes a situation of weakness while « Israel » evokes the ideal of normality — even of triumph — the meaning of the song adopted by the Russian Jews as a rallying cry is open to question. By saying « od avinu hai», do they not mean that as long as one member of the body of the Jewish people is oppressed « Jacob is not dead », i.e., the time of « Israel » is not yet accomplished? This question is another illustration of my point of view — that of the permanent relevance of the biblical message in the history of men. Only the prophet knows from evidence the significance-content of situations or events contemporary with himself; but if the biblical text ends with a period, it is surely because it contains all the elements necessary to understand history and influence it from the beginning to the end of time. Let us add that « Jacob » can be lived chiefly in two ways: Joseph, who contributes to the success of the nations among which he dwells, and Judah, whose capital is Jerusalem. This enables tradition to speak of the « Messiah, son of Joseph » who must give place to the « Messiah, son of Judah », and it can legitimately be asked if the biblical accounts have not an intensely modern dimension.

Land of Israel

This context is a good one in which to approach the problem of the land of Israel, promised to the people of Israel at the very beginning of their history. As I am prepared to deal with this question at greater length during the discussion period, I shall say no more here than that Israel's vocation implies that the people of Israel bear witness, as a people, to the nations of the earth. The land of Israel is not merely the setting of God's revelation; it is also the only place where those to whom it is fundamentally destined, can live and be fully realized. The exiles, having been dispersed to the four corners of the earth, will be impregnated with the spirit of the nations among whom they have lived. Their return should make it possible, through the re-assembly and reunion of the representatives of all the human families — and consequently of all the ways of being human — to reconstitute the unity of this family, broken at the time of the Tower of Babel. The return should give birth to a nation that reconciles and unifies all the ways of being human that are incarnated in the different peoples of the earth. This unity of the people of Israel on earth is the reflection of the unity of God in heaven.

The land of Israel is « holy » not only because of its essence and its specificity, but also because of its vocation, since it is here that the very object of creation is to be realized: the birth of the Son of Adam, the Man-People whose model is « Israel ».

Professor Vogel has said that the special status of the Land is linked to the special status of the people to whom it was given. Certainly; but it must be said that on the plane of pure biblical exegesis, the land of Israel is intrinsically different from other lands (Deut 11:10). The land of Egypt can be fertilized naturally by the waters of the Nile, but the land of Israel is barren and watered only « by the rain from heaven ». This means that the presence of water, an element indispensable for all forms of life, depends on God (cf. the tractate Ta'anit of the Talmud, and the place occupied by water in the Jewish liturgy). In other words, the Bible personalizes the land of Israel and presents it as allergic to the kind of human behavior that is contrary to the moral code (cf. Lev 18: 24-29).

Now it can be seen that it was impossible to speak of man and God in the perspective of the Kingdom without alluding to the centrality of the Land. In Jewish thought, the coming of the Kingdom has always been tied to the resurrection of the Land, to the return of the exiles and to the ingathering of the dispersed. The only criterion retained by talmudic tradition to evaluate messianic potential is in fact the liberation of the Land from all foreign domination.

Jerusalem is not only a city of stones, it is not only a disincarnate symbol: it is both these things at the same time. Its liberation and its unification do not belong only to the domain of what is called « politician politics »: it has its place in the framework of the eschatological concerns of the Bible. We read the Torah and understand it literally without distorting its spirit; why do we not do the same with those chapters of Isaiah, Ezekiel or Zechariah (14:6-16) which speak of Jerusalem and the land of Israel?

Before concluding I would like to draw your attention to a serious error we risk committing when we speak of « Jewish messianism » in the perspective of the Kingdom. There is no Jewish messianism. There is, at the very most, a Jewish reading of the Bible, a Jewish understanding of what Scripture says about « the time to come », but « there is no Messiah for Israel ». Biblical messianism expresses a universal hope which concerns the whole of humanity, the ultimate, harmoniously completed form of ADaM to which the human family will give birth. It is in this spirit that we speak of the « generations of Adam » or the « generations of man ». They end in a reconciled humanity that the Bible calls « the Son of Adam » or « the Son of Man ».

I do not intend to approach the political aspect of the problem of Israel. I notice, however, that the reactions provoked by the history at present being unfolded in the land of Israel are incontestably disproportionate to the objective or quantitative reality of this history. I ask myself if this phenomenon can be explained by the fact that the collective subconscious of the nations is aware that what takes place on this little spot of land concerns the whole of humanity now and in the future. If the people of Israel is considered to be « a people of priests », it cannot be indifferent to the destiny of other peoples: it has perhaps a special place in the concert of the nations, a fact with in no way prevents it from belonging to the great family of mankind.

We should try to re-read the Bible in this light: that the last chapters haven not yet been fulfilled, and that the history we are living is leading to this fulfilment. We must have the courage to take the Bible seriously and to read it with the conviction that it has brought a message which remains relevant both for the society of men and for the society of nations. We must come to understand that Nature is Creation, that the objects and situations we know have a significance-content inscribed in the biblical perspective, that is to say, in the march of history towards the realization of its plan. This plan is the coming of the Kingdom of God, the acceptance of his Kingdom in the history of mankind on earth. I believe that the famous chapter eleven of Isaiah (particularly verse nine) can be understood in the light of the parallelism that I have suggested between the relationship of husband-wife and God-People. « The earth will be filled with the knowledge of God », that is to say, all men will « know » God in the biblical sense of the term, in a gigantic « spiritual and universal orgasm ».

In a civilization undergoing a state of crisis, desacralized, having lost its sense of values, we Jews and Christians, adepts of the Bible, are or should be heralds of God, mouth-pieces of his message. We should, more than ever, make him known and contribute to the coming of his Kingdom on earth.

When our witness has been received, not only will God be One, as we already proclaim, but his Name will also be one. His unity will be recognized as soon as man, his image, has regained his own original unity. Men are separated, divided, opposed; when they rediscover God, they will rediscover their unity. And if this enterprise seems arduous, let us realize that by reconstituting their unity they will once more find God, their only Father, and then we shall be able to affirm that his Kingdom is established.