How to Read the Bible
For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. Deuteronomy 30:11 NASB
Out of reach – Are the commandments “out of reach”? If you grew up under Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther, you would be compelled to say, “Yes. No one can really keep them.” In Christian doctrinal terms, we assert that “we sin daily in word, thought, and deed.” Apparently Moses was mistaken. He told the children of Israel that the commandments were not too difficult nor were they rāḥōq (too remote). William White comments on this word, “In many passages there is also the notion of ‘being too far’ as if the person or object was unreachable (Deut 12:21), or too distant to be heeded (Gen 21:16).”[1] So you choose: Luther or Moses. Oh, sorry, you didn’t get a choice, did you? You were taught Italian guilt—being born into sin. Moses never entered the equation, until we noticed that what he said doesn’t match what we were taught.
But this problem isn’t just a Christian one. Abraham Heschel’s magnum opus, Heavenly Torah, explores the two major schools of thought about the Jewish view of Torah. One view (Rabbi Akiva’s) sees the Torah in terms of God’s immanence, that is, the Torah is heavenly, an integral part of the supernatural world removed from the pedestrian earthly existence of ordinary human beings. Its language is God’s language, not ours. Torah may look like human language, but it is really God’s language, infused into this earthly realm. The other view (Rabbi Ishmael’s) views the Torah as God’s instructions in human clothing. The Torah isn’t some mystical, esoteric, heavenly voice, far above human reason. It is practical, human instruction. God exists in the transcendent realm[2], a fixed boundary between heaven and earth, but He has provided some view of the divine in the human Torah. It is not the entire truth about God. It could not be since He inhabits a transcendent world. Torah is one way of discovering God, no different than other rational ways. The difference between these two views has enormous implications for how we read the text.
Heschel writes:
“In Rabbi Akiva’s approach to Torah, there is a vast expanse separating the upper realm of the universe from the lower realm. The Torah was written and abides in the supernal world, and Moses ascended to the upper realm and brought it down to earth. The Torah, God’s instrument in creating the world, unifies the two realms. Its arms embrace both worlds. Is it, then, conceivable that this Torah speaks in the language of human beings?
“What is the distinction between the language of Torah and human language? Human beings distinguish between form and content. There are words that add nothing to the substance of a thought but are uttered because the conventions and rules of language so dictate; their contribution is aesthetic rather than instructive. God’s ways, however, are not human ways. With God, form is nonexistent; there is only content. Every letter, every word, whether expanding or limiting a subject, is intended to teach a lesson. Each idiom instructs and clarifies. There is no form here; all is content, all is instruction. Just as heaven is loftier than earth, so the language of Torah is loftier than the language of human beings. And our rational powers are insufficient to grasp the esoterics of Torah; they cannot be handled with the tongue of logic alone.
“In Rabbi Akiva’s view, textual teaching exists for expansion. One who confines exegesis to the surface meaning is like a poor man looking for gleanings. Torah must not be fixed. The text should be treated as is any living organism that will not remain inert and that has multiple facets. For there is life in the text, and it can grow and bear fruit.”[3]
Heschel contrasts Akiva’s view with the view of Rabbi Ishmael:
“In the view of Rabbi Ishmael, textual teaching exists to establish tradition and to facilitate understanding; it is not for expansion. The plain meaning, which arises out of the standard rules of interpretation, has a fixity; and one who engages in expansive exegesis distorts the Torah and ascribes to it alien intents. Just as one receives reward for expounding, so is there reward for desisting. The text’s existence depends on fixity. Thus, Rabbi Ishmael’s way is that of apprehension, not expansion.”[4]
“Rabbi Ishmael . . . would have no truck with esoteric matters and did not see a transcendent substance in the Torah . . . He assessed and weighed Scripture with scales of logic, eschewing sleight of hand, and interpreted it directly. The principle ‘the Torah speaks in human language’ was his guiding light. . . The Torah was not given to the angels, and a person is responsible only for that which the eye of his reason can discern. His method demonstrates that direct reason is the Torah’s best companion, and the more that the Torah can be harmonized with such reason, the better.”[5]
Perhaps this is a bit too much to absorb. Perhaps it’s easier if we ask a few questions in order to see what method we really use.
When you read the Bible, do you think that each verse has a hidden message, a deeper spiritual level, that begs you to find it buried somewhere in the letters, the words, or the grammar?
When you read the Bible, do you accept it as basic instruction for living, or do you try to expand the text through midrash or modern application?
Are you inclined to think of the Bible as a book of spiritual secrets waiting to be revealed through proper mediation and prayer (or the guidance of the Spirit)?
Are you willing to investigate Scripture with your reason no matter where it might take you, or do you reject logical conclusions when they disturb or disrupt your spiritual commitments?
Akiva or Ishmael, Luther or Moses: the implications are significant.
So, how do you read the Bible?
Topical Index: Akiva, Ishmael, Torah, Deuteronomy 30:11
[1] White, W. (1999). 2151 רָחַק. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 844). Chicago: Moody Press.
[2] In a footnote, Gordon Tucker points out that Rabbi Ishmael’s use of the word “transcendent” is not comparable to our Western view (following Plato). Rabbi Ishmael believed that God’s nature was transcendent but the Torah was designed for human beings. We can’t know God in His transcendent nature, but we can know God’s instructions for living in this world.
[3] Abraham Heschel, Heavenly Torah as Refracted through the Generations, pp. 55-56.
[4] Ibid., p. 56.
[5] Ibid., p. 57.
NOTICE: Oh, my. Rosanne has posted a new recipe. Mmm. Delicious. Go to the home page and look for Rosanne’s Kitchen to find it
