I was reading the comments provided by Chabad.org on the Torah portion Naso and found a very interesting comment by the first Rebbe of Chabad; Rabbi Schneur Zalman:
The Torah has been compared to water because just as water tends to descend from a higher place to a lower place, so has the Torah descended from its place of glory, which is the will and wisdom of G-d… until it has clothed itself in physical things and in matters of this world. [1]
Although his work is written much later than the Gospel of John, I think its possible to view the Prologue of John through a somewhat similar perspective.
John writes about the word being in the beginning with God, and in some sense, God, or perhaps better stated, expressive of what God was, and goes on to equate the word with Jesus. This has led, and perhaps rightfully so, to the idea that if the word = God, Jesus = the word, then Jesus = God. However as Ive argued before theres a lot to say against that.
But lets look at it with the text quoted above, (though I by no means qualify as an interpreter of the Tanya), he says in a sense that the will and wisdom of God descended and were wrapped into physical things and matters of this world. Will and wisdom of God are apt translations of logos and as such I think its possible to see a parallel between the Alter Rebbe’s explanation of the Torah and John’s Jesus.
The physical text of the Torah descended from a higher place in the sense that it is the will and wisdom of God, similarly it is possible to see Jesus as descending from a higher place in the sense that his life reflected the will and wisdom of God, to the point of being equated with it.
An important point to be noted is that the Alter Rebbe certainly did not believe by writing these words on the Torah that the Torah was God. This corollary is so ingrained in Christianity that it seems that another interpretation on the Prologue is inconceivable yet I think it would be a valid way of seeing Jesus in the same way as the Alter Rebbe described the text of the Torah; the continuation of Gods will and wisdom on earth.
————————————————————-
[1] Parshah summary & commentary, Chabad.org, p.15
A very interesting comparison. It fits in my thoughts as I wrote down in one of my last posts: Torah revealed by Yeshua. Supposed the Rabbi used Hebrew words, or at least a Hebrew mindset, water then means the living water which cleans. (Mayim chayim, as used in ceremonies.) And in that way we can also say that the word is spoken out with breath/wind (ruach). Where Debar is, there’s Ruach. And where Ruach is, there’s Chai. And where a word is there’s a creation. So, according to the Prologue and further in John, the Living One ascended into heaven and from there the Ruach (speaking the word) descended into the hearts of his people. How do we need that spirit, yes it’s also the Wisdom as written in Proverbs 8.
Thanks for sharing this! Jos
B”H
You are very much correct in your reflection on this piece of Tanya. The entire fourth chapter is a description of incarnation…the descent of Ein Sof into the physical material of parchment and ink. I would like to add that you are in no way over reading this information, the Baal Tanya knew exactly what he was saying when he wrote this; he was not only writing of the Torah he was also writing of the Tzaddik who is a living Torah. I had a three hour long conversation with a very level headed Chabad Rabbi about this subject and we spoke in detail regarding this conception of the incarnation and the Tzaddik as a conduit of HaShem. He told me that although he had not previously read the chapter in this light the idea was completely kosher, then he leaned over the table and said in a whisper, “but just because we know something doesn’t mean we have to put in on a billboard.” And he is correct, but nevertheless, its nice to know.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your comment.
I think I wasn’t very clear in my post so allow me to clarify a bit and see whether we are on the same page.
When comparing the way the Tanya speaks about the Torah to the way the Prologue speaks about the Word I see a similar idea being expressed. This idea, I think, is the following:
The Torah represents the will of God, his blueprint for life. The Torah is sometimes being described as pre-existent, the plaything of God, in a sense almost separate from God.
To some this has given the impression that it literally pre-existed even as the 6 other things that are recorded in Rabbinic literature, among them the name of the messiah. Yet this would be a gross misunderstanding, the text of the Torah did not pre-exist more than repentance (one of the seven things said to have pre-existed cf. b.Pes. 54a, b.Ned 39b).
Dunn aptly commented on this: “The items on the list were predetermined by God to fulfil their function in the outworking of his purpose for his creation and his people” Dunn, Christology in the Making, p.71
Hence the way the Alter Rebbe speaks of the Torah should not be used to bolster the case for the Incarnation which would fly in the face of the unity and oneness of Hashem. In my opinion that would constitute an overreading that confuses personification of divine wisdom with a literal idea of pre-existence and consequently a big stretch (perhaps even a breach) of the boundaries of monotheism.
Naturally it looks a bit arrogant to dismiss your testimony of someone who actually studies this and stands within this line of tradition. But I think there is no way to reconcile this with the (developed) idea of the nature of God within Judaism.
In a discussion I previously had I set out my idea of the Prologue:
The Word of God in all of Tanakh signified the activity of God in this world, his will and wisdom. So when the author of John’s gospel applies this to Jesus he is simply saying that Jesus represented the will and wisdom of God. The equation between Jesus and the word is not an ontological one but more or less symbolical. And it can hardly be more than that, as the word of God was only a way of talking about Gods activity in this world, not a separate figure.
Tell me if this makes sense, and feel free to point out weaknesses in my argument, this remains a difficult passage for me as well, and only desire to understand it better.
Blessings,
Daniel
Ah…Well then you are mistaken a bit. The Tanya says it like this “the Torah and the Holy One blessed be He, are one. Again the Baal Tanya writes, “He is both the Knower and the Knowledge.” Although there are with each decent from higher to lower an increasing number of garments placed upon the King as the Torah flows from high to low, nevertheless…”When one is embraced by a king, it does not matter if the king is wearing one garment or several so as long as that royal person is in them.” It is for this reason the Torah is called an “incarnation.” When one attaches themselves to the Torah they are literally attached to HaShem who is beyond comprehension. Now it actually must be like this because “HaShem Elokeinu HaShem echad…To say that He is one is not to say that He is alone apart from us, but to say that He is ultimately the ONLY ONE, there is none else. This is very standard chasidut, but could take getting used to. If the Tzaddik lives as a separate entity from HaShem then this is actually idolatry because we are saying that there are two powers in the universe. Only with complete “bitul Hayesh” which is nullification of self existence can the Tzaddik actually become a “conduit” and a pipeline to HaShem…again this is standard Chasidut. I think in the end we actually agree…keep up the conversation.
Hi Tim,
Interesting words. The description of each descent from higher to lower and an increasing number of garments reminds me alot of Gnosticism with its emanations. Although I think that comparison stops at the point that Kabbalistic writings in general do not consider the material world to be inferior or evil.
What I would be interested in is whether you think the concept of Tzaddikism is also applicable to other Tzaddikim, like for example the Baal Shem Tov, Rebbe Nachman of Breslov, etc.? If so, in what sense is Yeshua different from these?
Looking forward to your reply,
Daniel
The principal we’re calling Tzaddikism is based on a belief that included in the soul of Israel is a spark of the soul of Mashiach. The soul of Mashiach is called the Ruach Elokim (this idea first appears in a midrash regarding the Ruach Elokim which hoovered over the waters of creation) In this way Israel, Mashiach, and HaShem are unified. I say this to emphasize that when a chasid seeks a connection through attachment to a Rebbe he is not attempting to receive from an independent source but from the very soul of Mashiach. In this way a Rebbe becomes an apostle of the messianic soul. Paul wrote, “[You]received me as a messenger of G-d, even as Mashiach Yeshua himself.” (Gal. 4:14) The chasid is limited in his attachment to HaShem only by the level of his Rebbe’s independence from G-d. Every Chasid desires to find the True Tzaddik. He is a completely nullified soul and is therefor actually Mashiach. This is Yeshua.
Baruch hanoten lanu ha’Davar he’Chai ba’Rebbe Melech ha’Mashiach Adoneinu Yeshua (Blessed is the One who gives us the Living Word in the Rebbe King Messiah our Master Yeshua). U’varuch ha’noten lanu ko’ach la’asot chayil li’chvod Elohim ha’Av (And blessed is the One who gives us strength to act valiantly for the glory of Father G-d).
If I didn’t communicate the idea above, there is only one True Tzaddik. His soul, his spark, is found in the Israelite nation and shines brightly in tzaddikim like the Baal Shem Tov. These are pretty lofty subjects and seem a bit pretentious to speak about. I hope I’m conveying this clearly.