Process Cosmotheology and the Biological Universe, Part 2 - A New Philosophic-Theology

 Process Cosmotheology and the Biological Universe

Part 1 - Why a Process-based Universe is Essential

Part 2 - A New Philosophic-Theology

Part 3 - Steven Dick's Naturalistic Cosmology

Part 4 - Andrew Davis' Response to Steven Dick's Naturalistic Cosmology

* * * * * * *

What is the definition of Cosmogeny?

• Cosmogony / Cosmogeny / Cosmology (nouns; synonyms)

• That branch of astrophysics which studies the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe

What is the difference between cosmology and cosmogony?

• Cosmology is the study of the structure and changes in the present universe,

• while the scientific field of cosmogony is concerned with the origin of the universe.

A New Philosophic-Theology

I Give Unto You

Part 2

by R.E. Slater

In the last post I introduced a type of thinking by scientific naturalists which is every bit as true for any religious thinker. Essentially, both science and religion may neglect to regard any philosophical underpinnings to their projected schemata or theologies. Statedly, whatever we study, or however we behave, ourselves towards one another or the world at large, there will always be found underneath all such activities a corresponding individual or societal philosophy within all social arrangements projecting outwards from ourselves upon other social arrangements being regarded.

Such projections (sic, unobserved conjections, hypotheticals, speculations, theories) are more than existential (sic, experiential, empirical, factual, observational, observed, pragmatic) or phenomenological (sic, intentionality, lived experience, world experience, meaning-making) or even phonological (sic, re regard to linguistics, semantics, things "acceptable, allowable, or correct"; morphological, syntactical, or well-formed traditional beliefs). Any scientist or theologian must consider the underlying philosophy (or, eclectically, philosophies) guiding their projections - whether personal, social, cultural, religious, or specific to their discipline such as the acclaimed tropes of bias towards or away from religion.

• So, the very first, and best thing any scientist or scientific theory might do; or the very first, and best thing any theologian, preacher, congregationalist or their own creeds and theologies might do; is to both admit and discover the kind of philosophies influencing and guiding their thoughts, activities, and projected constructions of people, societies, nature, world, and universe.

• Secondly, philosophy NEVER follows a construction... whether it is scientific or theologic. Philosophy is always the lowest base layer to whatever comes after it. Generally speaking, science may recognize this within itself even though it doesn't seem to recognize this as thoroughly as one might like when claiming "scientific objectivity". In answer to this, and as illustration, process philosophy's quantum-like disposition roundly criticizes scientific theory leaning into platonic forms of reductionism, mechanism, and syncretism.

• Thirdly, church theologies produce this same error when always claiming their creeds and dogmas must underlie-and-guide any present day philosophies... including that of science. And yet, however-much a religion would exempt - or extract - itself from any forms of "worldly" philosophies, it cannot. All religious creeds and beliefs result from some form (or forms) of eclectic philosophies as well. The better thing to do is to recognize what that philosophy is and how any-or-all corresponding creedal statements and dogmas have been similarly affected by... and might be rectified or corrected... in light of this introspective knowledge. Again, process theology (as a subdiscipline of process philosophy) looks at the subject of God and resulting beliefs of God and similarly criticize those same traditional theologies claiming correctness when their only real claim can be that of conformity to previous philosophical beliefs.

Which is also why this website has become more focused on not only defining what a progressive theology may look like in Jesus, but also how it may behave in light of a given integral philosophy such as that of process philosophy.

Too, do not make the mistake that progressive evangelical theology is the same thing as progressive process-based theology. My background and training rests in the former but my present day direction occupies the latter. They are not one-and-the same thing. 

Certainly conservative evangelicalism can be shown to be inherently filled with processual qualities in it's theologies - including its natural theologies. However, today's WESTERN-based philosophies do more pronouncely inform conservative evangelicalism which has blended syncretized forms of Hellenistic, Platonic, Enlightened, and Modernistic projections (among others) upon it's current "traditional" theologies of God, society, and the world we live in.

And though we live in a process-world, and can read of that process world in the bible in its narratives and stories of processual events, one cannot really say that any of evangelical's preferred forms of Wesleyanism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, or Catholic projections (aka, theologies) are purely processual. They are not. However, any one of those projections can be examined and better spoken through a processual philosophy such as Whitehead's whose ideations reflected, gathered, and more thoroughly surmised, similar processual philosophies from ancient times until today.

One Other Observation

Here at Relevancy22, I, and others, are attempting to rectify our past religious training in light process philosophy as informed by process-versions of science, theology, ecology, psychology (sic, Jungian Archetypes) plus all other disciplines as they become better reflected by process thought.

Into this mold we have chosen to reflect more contemporary academia regarding knowledge of God, bible, society, culture, and religion.

So if the theology here seems more "liberal" it is NOT because of process thought but because of process theology's contemporary rapport with other disciplines. In it's own right it is how the world works. It does not claim to be a ready-formed epistemology per se, but can-and-will lead to forms of processual epistemologies.

Conclusion

Matthew Segall and Bruce Damer in their abstract gave a summation of the need for science to recognize and specify it's scientific presuppositions and metaphysics even as I am saying here that the church-and-its-theology must do the same and be honest in the process of doing it's own inquiries:

The Cosmological Context of the Origin of Life:  Process Philosophy and the Hot Spring Hypothesis, by Matthew David Segall and Bruce Damer, pp 78-79

3. Conclusion

"As was affirmed in our Introduction, natural science must be granted autonomy to pursue hypotheses concerning the modes of operation of the empirical world independent of the speculative postulates of philosophers and the sacred doctrines of theologians. And yet, in a time of paradigmatic upheaval, if the special sciences are to avoid degenerating into a medley of ad hoc hypotheses then they must themselves become philosophical by engaging in a thorough examination of their metaphysical presuppositions. 236 Without a ground-up re-imagination of entrenched materialistic assumptions, progress on questions like the origin of life (not to mention the origin of matter and mind) will remain stunted. Further, amidst an intensifying planetary emergency, philosophy and religion have an essential role to play in the translation of scientific findings into a meaningful and motivating worldview for an increasingly precarious civilization. In large part due to the truly unprecedented scope of our scientific knowledge and the technological power it affords, our species now finds itself on the verge of initiating a major evolutionary transition. The Anthropocene 237 is not the work of a god, but merely that of a conscious animal. Indeed, as we have seen, perhaps humanity’s vast endogenous and even vaster technologically augmented information processing capacities are dramatic amplifications of the social networks established by our progenitor ancestors. Whether the present anthropogenic metamorphosis in the Gaian system brings near-term extinction or creative advance for human beings remains to be seen. 238 The coauthors of this paper hope that their transdisciplinary collaboration has contributed some theoretical insight into the origin of life on Earth. As for the destiny of human life on this planet, there remains an urgent practical need to integrate science with philosophy and religion in pursuit of a viable pathway for our species through the great transformation in Earth history that is already underway."

In summary,

i) process philosophy is how to see the world for what it is; and, ii) contemporary theological study is to reflect that process world in as accurately a way as possible without being beholden to past traditional creedal beliefs and folklores.

As example, when process theology meets science, it is because process thought is reforming contemporary science around a much broader processual world than science's own reductionistic, mechanical, law-based projections. Thus this series of posts stated interaction with Steven Dick's scientific naturalism.

At the last, it is imperative to discover religious bias, then next  to deconstruct it in order to rebuild a theology's correspondent tenets and beliefs. This might be done as I have done over the years by first attending to all theology requiring attention, and then, at a later date - when realizing it wasn't the "biblical" hermeneutic which required attention but the underlying philosophy which had to be dismantled and rebuilt from it's inhibitive, inorganic, disjointed, nonrelational, and overly constructed sense of self to better comport with the philosophical-theologies at hand. Which, in this case, was process philosophy and not others forms such as Western or Continental philosphies per se.

By and by, it is mine own testimony that I had to wade my way across very deep and threatening waters of social conservatisms and non-progressive religious fundamentalisms / evangelicalisms. And then also do the same when analyzing Western thought (Platonic, Enlightened, Modernistic) as versus European Continental thought, before finally discovering Whiteheadian process philosophy with its antecedent forms of process theology. In sum, I chose to let process thought begin to reflect upon my Western-based evangelical Christianity.

Further, I am neither Catholic, Orthodox, nor some wanna-be form of religious enlightenment (sic, Buddhism et al; or New Ageisn et al). I simply wish to speak to my own experience and history in all its limitations as I know and understand it to be. Thus and thus, my interest in surmounting and solidifying my Western (Protestant-based) Christian cultural beliefs that they may be more helpful and instructive to others wandering the same lost roads I had once journeyed.

To the Lord's credit, He began my journey with the twin fellowships of doubt and uncertainty against the beliefs I was told never to doubt. And in so doing I learned to become teachable again and able to relearn new things which were anathema to my traditional faith.

Here then, at this website, post-evangelical and progressive forms of process Christianity will be spoken as it reflects, and rebuilds, upon a more loving, more immanent Godhead to us today and the world at large.

Conclusion

To conclude, I will next present in part 3 Steven Dick's expansive proposition for a Naturalistic Universe based in science and stripped of God. I do not wish to speak ill of him but to show a thankfulness to him for doing the hard work of presenting a credible, but non-theistic cosmology.

Dick's cosmology uses evolution in the non-God sense. One that is atheistic. However, it should be observed that Darwin himself, as a Christian scientist, developed his understanding of a rudimentary, processual-form of evolution with God in mind. A God-based evolution which came about through its processes because of God's creative and divine involvement.

Hence, as a new-thinking Christian, I had to admit evolution as both a God-filled activity as well as one which is fully, and thoroughly, processual in all of its components and inner-workings. The first action denies the traditional Christian perspective. The second action informs atheistic evolution of its need for God based upon a Christian-led processual philosophy. Thus and thus, both philosophy and theology were redeveloped and redirected towards a more palatable form of process-based Christianity.

And finally, we must remember to regard Dick's presentation as useful naturalistic presentation of cosmogeny. Though atheistic and without any form of "metaphysic" per se (sic, any metaphysic is a projection into a cosmogeny of value, ethics, purpose, identity, and so forth). In sum, Dick's study of the universe as a naturalized cosmogeny seems to be sufficiently broad and well thought out as a proposition which will be of help when re-orientating it towards a God-filled processual universe as Andrew Davis will be shown to have done in Part 4.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

October 16, 2022

One form of Process Theology can be summed up here when seeing God as all-loving instead of the all-too-common image of a God who sometimes loves us and oftentimes judges us:

Process Cosmotheology and the Biological Universe, Part 1 - Why a Process-based Universe is Essential

Process Cosmotheology and the Biological Universe

Part 1 - Why a Process-based Universe is Essential

Part 2 - A New Philosophic-Theology

Part 3 - Steven Dick's Naturalistic Cosmology

Part 4 - Andrew Davis' Response to Steven Dick's Naturalistic Cosmology

* * * * * * *

A Universe By Any Other Name...

Why a Process-based Universe is Essential

Part 1

by R.E. Slater

An Introduction

Two weeks ago I listened to a presentation by Steven Dick re a "Naturalistic Cosmology" in which he described a non-God (non-theistic) universe leaning into more explainable, terrestrial phenomenology while rejecting any supernatural phenomenology contrary to how a religiously-informed perspective would do.

On the obverse side of Dick's lecture Andrew Davis spoke to a Christian Theistic Cosmology (one with God in it as the lead player) also using naturalistic interpretation underlaid by a Creator-God through-and-through while using process language in both its i) Whiteheadian metaphysics and, ii) its derivatives of process theology ala Hartshorne, Cobb, and Cobb's process students over the generations.

Of note, I look upon Andrew Davis as the inheritor of John Cobb's mantel. To date, he is filling Cobb's role well but it waits to be seen how well. Which is where the rest of us come in as we push forward Whiteheadian thought in an many directions as John Cobb had i) scientifically (as we see here in these two articles by Dick's and Davis); ii) secularly in the arts, economy, politics, ecology, etc.; and, iii)  religiously (such as Christianity, for myself, while knowing the many commonalities a process Christianity can share with other global religious and panpsychic beliefs).

Which also explains my attraction to process thought. In my mind it is reflecting a truer metaphysic, cosmology, and constructed worldview back to me as inherent in the universe's very bones - or DNA - of its phenomenology, than has any previous worldview such as platonism, scientific mechanism, human enlightenment, confucianism, buddhism, and such like.

Westernism, on which Western Christianity as been built, has limited the Christian faith to speculate on i) the nature of God, ii) God's activities in creation, and iii) how humanity is to comport itself with each, both nature and God. When basing Christianity upon a processual foundation rather than its many previous other philosophical structures, many of these non-processual irregularities go away when attempting to address contemporary scientific observations... along with the many non-processual ethical irregularities Western Christianity has had with civil democracy (v Christian dominionism), Christian racisms (v White Christian Nationalism), and community organization (v Christianity's fake artificial walls between itself and the "secular" world it inhabits by placing its own fake ethical structures of "secular" exclusionisms, asceticisms, and such like). More simply, traditional Christianity has attempted to "re-Christianize" a processual world away from its truer identity.

Moreover, a process form of Christianity helps to expand Western (and Eastern) forms of Christianity to more truly embrace a humanitarian form of community, cooperation, coordination, renewal, redemption, reclamation, and the very rebirth of humanity's instrumentality as a healing, positive presence within an ecological cosmology struggling within itself to find greater generative value than it presently presents. Which indeed, is the very struggle humanity has within itself.

• Hence, traditional Christianity would call it's struggle as one trapped between "creational freewill" as versus creation's own "opposing nature" which would naturally bind itself in non-freeing ways.

• It would further describe this struggle as one between good and evil, sin and oppression... leading to the very death of soul, spirit, mind, heart, and love.

• Thus and thus, God being a God of love (as opposed to the Christian belief that God is both good AND evil), process Christian theology will take the metaphysic of process philosophy and apply God's love evenly across all its traditional church creeds, beliefs, and theologies.

• When doing so, this application will disrupt traditional Christian beliefs mucked-down into their own variable theodicies as each attempts to explain good and evil events in life;

• And, their variable visions of a divinely-ruled theocracy (how it might go about constructing a church structure alongside civil government).

Why these beliefs and endeavors? Because traditional Christianity has not addressed its own non-processual core structures demanding it live apart and not within God's processual creation.

In affect, Process Christianity states God is love centrally and congruently across all metaphysical, ontological, and ethical structures in the universe. That a processual universe will demand process living between ourselves and with itself.

Thus the warrant to build in-as-many-ways-as-possible - from societal to religious structures cosmo-ecological societies. That is, to finding ways to processual live with one another and nature itself (more properly, learning to live with an eco-universe at-large). When done, faiths will find less competition, a more loving God theology shed of wrath, judgment, and hell, and many reasons to comport with one another.

Conclusion

In conclusion, one last traditional Christian belief must be addressed: that of a God who is divine possessor and giver of wrath, judgment and hell. A God of love is not this. Cannot be this. Cannot do these things EVER! Does neither have ontological agency to disrupt the freewill God has given to creation (an agency based on God's love and not by God's divine decree or fiat).

Love says we are to living responsibly with one another and nature. When harmed we are to reconcile and restore one another as loving justice can allow. To exercise healing and reclamation into all areas of business, politics, and cooperate living. And to live for the present moments of every day rather than cashing-out-of-life by separating ourselves from the world to await a heaven which cannot come without our participation towards its rebirth.

Causalities and Necessities of Processual Living

• In a cosmology struggling with using freewill effectively, we must regard that evil is NOT accounted to its Loving Creator but to a creation endowed with the Creator's loving freewill.

• Rather, that the sin, evil, and hell experienced in this life is but a reflection of our own inability to love or to utilize our freewill redemptively rather than for sin and evil.

• That Christianity and other religions have, and can, address these differences within their own traditional structures by tweaking their separate cultural structures with processual difference and informed processual living.

• Especially within that culture's ability to be tweaked whereby a better relationally processual world may be developed with one another and creation itself.

Redemption From the Soil of Terrestrial Being

Finally, as a process Christian, I find the very idea of atoning redemption inherent abundantly everywhere in creational spaces. That the Cross of Christ, the Gospel of Christ, the Promises of God, the Covenants of God, and the expect Futurisms / Eschatologies of experiencing a God walking amongst us is...

all derivative from the very ground we walk upon, and live, and move, and have, our being. The stories of redemption are everywhere about us. They are not ever UNcommon but synchronistically - or universally, and terresterially, - common everyday experiences of redeeming-creational living! If fact, redemption is an ontologically cosmological constant!

Which is why so many religions and moral insights come back to the same common ground of redemption with one another. Which is another way of saying that love-and-reclamation are the universal glues to living terrestrial life fully!

It is because of these imbued creational elements that creation's God is fully imbued and invested of God's love and redemption into the very soils of our souls and being - humanly, corporately with all creation, terrestrially, and cosmologically. 

The Story of Jesus is the continuing story of God rectifying a continually freewilled and indeterminant creation by unloving and unreclaming elements of sin and evil. The Story of Jesus comes back to metaphysically defeat errant freewills gone bad. 

But to effect Jesus' healing of divine love back into the original intention of the Creator-God now become Redeemer... creation must be willing to use Christ's victory over sin and evil.

The Christian church may call this godly process as sin and repentance unto salvation. Islam may use similar terms within it's faith for types of reclamation and renewing redemption. Even as other religions may describe their gospels and efforts as latent human conscious behavior towards redemptive activity as arising from their own experiential observations.

But it is ultimately within the idea of process theology which flatly states God has not left us alone to survive ourselves and our worlds. That the far-away God has come near to His creation to renew, rebirth, reclaim, and revive all that creation and humanity is. This then is a story of God and God's redeeming love.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

October 16, 2022

Small, but Powerful, "3-Word-Theologies" from the NT

Small, but Powerful,

"Three-Word-Theologies" from the NT

The Cottage

A Weekly Sunday Observance

by Diana Butler Bass

October 2, 2022

Luke 17:5-6

The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!" The Lord replied, "If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, `Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you.

What caught my attention this week were the three words at the beginning of the text: Increase our faith!

Three words carry emotional and spiritual weight — you can feel the disciples’s longing to trust deeply, to believe more fervently. Sometimes three words are all that are needed.

Three word theologies in the New Testament:

• God is love
• Love your neighbor
• Here am I
• Be not afraid
• Peace on earth
• Love one another
• Do unto others
• Faith, hope, love
• Pray like this
• Go, do likewise
• God will provide
• Love is patient
• Love your enemies
• Seventy times seven
• Thy Kingdom come
• Love never fails
• Increase our faith
• Mustard seed faith

Honestly, who needs tomes of systematic doctrine when we have such concise wisdom at hand? Three word theology is deceptively simple, but it isn’t shallow. One could live a lifetime with this list and never grasp its full beauty or practice its teachings consistently. But these uncomplicated phrases beckon, holding our hearts and hopes, and offering a vision of love and mercy. The way is often found in the smallest things, the fewest words. Maybe all we need is mustard seed faith.

INSPIRATION

Lord of the growing seed,
you reach to the roots of our being
and quench our sea-deep thirst:
help us to know ourselves
through the eyes of the other
who calls us to answer and serve
and, in the end, be filled.

— Steven Shakespeare


Love is a place
& through this place of
love move
(with brightness of peace)
all places

yes is a world
& in this world of
yes live
(skilfully curled)
all worlds

— e.e. cummings, “Love is a Place”

On Sundays, the preacher gives everyone a chance
to repent their sins. Miss Edna makes me go
to church. She wears a bright hat
I wear my suit. Babies dress in lace.
Girls my age, some pretty, some not so
pretty. Old ladies and men nodding.
Miss Edna every now and then throwing her hand
in the air. Saying Yes, Lord and Preach!
I sneak a pen from my back pocket,
bend down low like I dropped something.
The chorus marches up behind the preacher
clapping and humming and getting ready to sing.
I write the word HOPE on my hand.

— Jacqueline Woodson


Who ever saw the mustard-plant,
wayside weed or tended crop,
grow tall as a shrub, let alone a tree, a treeful
of shade and nests and songs?
Acres of yellow,
not a bird of the air in sight.

No, He who knew
the west wind brings
the rain, the south wind
thunder, who walked the field-paths
running His hand along wheatstems to glean
those intimate milky kernels, good
to break on the tongue,

was talking of miracle, the seed
within us, so small
we take it for worthless, a mustard-seed, dust,
nothing.
Glib generations mistake
the metaphor, not looking at fields and trees,
not noticing paradox. Mountains
remain unmoved.

Faith is rare, He must have been saying,
prodigious, unique —
one infinitesimal grain divided
like loaves and fishes,

as if from a mustard-seed
a great shade-tree grew. That rare,
that strange: the kingdom

a tree. The soul
a bird. A great concourse of birds
at home there, wings among yellow flowers.
The waiting
kingdom of faith, the seed
waiting to be sown.

— Denise Levertov

Index - How to Read & Understand the Bible

Index - How to Read & Understand the Bible

This Index is one of two Indexes I've put together. The structure here will follow a chronological date-order from newest to oldest. The other, uses its own subtopical lists as I weed out duplicate articles. Here, I will not as each article will have some kind of relevancy to the category at hand.

When I began developing this site I had hoped to lend as many voices as I could to mine own so that more than one perspective might be gained. And if reading from topic to topic I do not believe any article will be found unhelpful or out-of-date. If anything, as I have moved from positionally from traditional Christianity to a Process-based Christian Faith the older readings will be useful as I build on my past theology to my understandings of my faith.

Lastly, my decidedly fundament/conservative evangelical protestant M.Div. degree held 125 graduate credit hours - mostly in expository and biblical studies from the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. So I feel quite comfortable in doing what I am doing, which is rewriting my faith so that it is contemporaneous with the world today and not built upon safer, more acceptable or popular Christian beliefs. Should you continue to read the posts here I hope it will challenge, enlighten, and spur your ideas of God, salvation, the church, and people in a better light than has recently been done over these past several decades.

Blessings,

R.E. Slater

Reading the Bible from a New Perspective

• Understanding the Bible, Part 1 - Special Revelation

• Understanding the Bible, Part 2 - Divine Inspiration

• Understanding the Bible, Part 3 - Let's Talk About Trans, Gays...

• Understanding the Bible, Part 4 - Jesus' Renewed Command

Bible Study

• Process Theology: Inspiration

• How to Interpret the Bible

• How to Read the Bible & It's Violence (eg, "Reading the Heart of Jesus")

• Reflections on Christianity - 14 Topics that Intrigue Me

• The Gift of Reading the Bible Dynamically

• What Brand of Philosophical Theism Do You Carry In Your Bible?

• The God of Brokenness: Etherlyn Q. Naiah - Asking for "A New Day of Worship" (a Liberian Gospel Song)

• How Might We Interpret the OT for Today?

• How Narrow or Broad is Your View of Jesus and Scripture?

• Thinking Biblically - Its Misuses and Abuses

• Allowing Biblical Narrative to Rise Above Bibliolatry

• Suggested Bible Reading & Study Plans for the New Year

• The Value of Intellectural Humility when Studying the Bible and Listening to God

• 5 Approaches to Biblical Theology (Barr, Carson, Wright, Childs, Watson)

• St. John's Video Timeline Project - Interviews with Scholars on the Bible, Church, and Historical Eras

• Recommended Christian Bible Studies: Thru the Bible Radio with Dr. J. Vernon McGee

• The Value of Asking Difficult Questions & Disturbing the Comfortable to Wrestle Afresh

• Honesty in the Journey (or On the Raising of Young Heretics)

• Deconstructing Our Faith

• N.T. Wright - Called to Study and Teach (video missing)

~ Unfinished Section ~

Bible - Archaeology (11)

Bible - Authority and Interpretation (55)
Bible - Christian Biblicism (36)
Bible - Common Questions of God (6)
Bible - Development and Canon (21)
Bible - Historical Criticism (16)
Bible - Historical Timelines (3)
Bible - How to Read the Bible (56)
Bible - Interpreting the NT (5)
Bible - Interpreting the OT (11)
Bible - Literary Types (7)
Bible - Maps and Charts (1)
Bible - NT Book Outlines (2)
Bible - Texts and Translations (10)
Bible - Textual Criticism (4)
Bible - the Jewish Torah (2)
Bible and Religion (4)
Bible Stories - Jonah and the Whale (1)
Bible Stories - Noah and the Flood (5)
Bible Stories from a Child's Perspective (2)

Most RecentlyCompleted Series

Fall 2024

9 - The Artistry of Processual Prophecy

8 - Part 2/2 - The Difference between Non-Process and Process-based Source Criticism and Interpretation

7 - Part 1/2 - The Difference between Non-Process and Process-based Source Criticism and Interpretation

6 - How People Think of the History of the Bible

5 - When Did Written History Begin and Why Is This Important to Christians?

4 - Becoming Bereans and the Process-based Christian Faith

3 - Is Yahweh ‌a‌ ‌Warrior‌ ‌God ‌or‌ ‌a‌ ‌God‌ ‌of‌ ‌Shalom?

2 - How to Read the Cruel and Violent Acts in the Bible

1 - What Is Divine Love and How Is Love Holy?

A Contemporary Understanding of the Bible - Part 4: How Israel's Shema Became Jesus' Renewed Command

A Contemporary Understanding of the Bible

Part 4 - Israel's Shema Became Jesus' Renewed Command

Series Information

• Understanding the Bible, Part 1 - Special Revelation

• Understanding the Bible, Part 2 - Divine Inspiration

• Understanding the Bible, Part 3 - Let's Talk About Trans, Gays...

• Understanding the Bible, Part 4 - Jesus' Renewed Command

Israel's Shema

Deuteronomy 6:2-14

Matthew 22.34-40 (NASB)

34But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35And one of them, [t]a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him: 36“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37And He said to him, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38This is the great and [u]foremost commandment. 39The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40Upon these two commandments [v]hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”

When I come across conservative Jewish or Christian thinking (though this could apply to any religion) I often think about the word or phrase, "theological particularism" or "religious particularism." Says one Internet link:

As with many words, the term particularism carries different meanings in different contexts. Particularism has been applied to sub-categories within diverse subjects such as politics, literature, history, ethics, and religion. Each of these topics brings a separate meaning to particularism, heavily influencing whether or not the idea is biblically justified. There are three areas in which the term particularism is most relevant to the Bible and Christian faith. These are theology, ethics, and philosophy.

As used in theology, defining particularism still requires context. The primary usage of the word relates it closely to the idea of exclusivism. In this meaning, particularism holds that there is a “particular” way for people to be saved—namely, through faith in Christ—and that there are no other means of salvation. This meaning of particularism contradicts the idea of there being many paths to salvation. We should note that the issue of how one is saved is actually separate from universalism. A person might believe that all people will eventually be saved—which is biblically incorrect—while also believing that only Christ’s death on the cross saves. Such a stance would be an example of particularism combined with universalism.

Another, somewhat less common theological use of the term particularism is as a synonym for the idea of predestination and/or limited atonement. The Particular Baptists use the term in that sense. In certain situations, theological particularism is meant to imply the concept of double predestination: the idea that God has defined a “particular” destiny for all people, saved or otherwise.

Ethically, the term particularism refers to the suggestion that moral judgments are only meaningful on a case-by-case basis. According to moral particularism, there are no objective or universal moral values, only decisions made as each particular instance unfolds. This approach is, of course, contrary to Scripture, which presents a very real difference between good and evil, transcending human opinion or judgment (Isaiah 55:9; Genesis 2:17; Deuteronomy 30:15). Moral particularism is also philosophically weak, in that any “judgment,” even on a case-by-case basis, assumes some standard by which to judge.

The one sense in which moral particularism finds biblical support is in the idea of “right judgment.” Biblically, we are commanded not to be shallow, legalistic, hypocritical, or foolish in our use of judgment (John 7:24). In that sense, we are meant to gauge moral issues on a “case-by-case” basis. It’s critical to note that Scripture does not suggest there are no objective moral values. On the contrary, the point made in the Bible is that we need to apply objective morality accurately (Romans 12:2), not in a legalistic or simplistic way. However, this is a nuance that moral particularism does not generally share.

In philosophy, particularism usually refers to the practice of asking, “What do I know?” before asking, “How do I know?” Philosophical particularism asserts the truth of a statement before—or even without—establishing reasons or justifications for it. “I don’t know how I know; I just know” is an expression of “blind faith,” an extreme version of philosophical particularism. As such, what is termed “epistemological particularism” is denounced for being insufficiently skeptical. To a large extent, the Bible agrees with this criticism—Scripture sees absolutely no virtue in being gullible or ignorant (Acts 17:11; Colossians 2:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

On the other hand, from a practical standpoint, a grain of epistemological particularism is unavoidable. Everyone believes something, even if it’s not well-justified. Before one can meaningfully discuss the nature of belief itself, one has to assume certain ideas; attempting to eliminate as many of these as possible led Descartes to distill the beginning of all philosophy as “I think, therefore I am.” But even this maxim begins by claiming that the statements “I am” and “I think” are known to be true—establishing a “what I know” before establishing “how I know.”

What’s important, both philosophically and biblically, is that we are willing to filter our assumptions and beliefs through some kind of justification, rather than simply insisting they are true, devoid of any evidence (1 John 4:1; 2 Peter 1:16). From that perspective, one can say that epistemological particularism is (mostly) contrary to the Bible’s stance on faith and belief. We are not meant to assume truth—we are meant to seek it (Matthew 7:7–8).

And there, in a nutshell, is the problem. We've taken God's great love and have particularized it into many categories - some godly, some ungodly - as Christian believers in the Faith of Jesus.

I would rather, however, not do this when making God's love as the Center and Foundation of the Christian Faith. I'll explain why in the article following using Israel's Shema as the running context for Jesus' statement, "If you love God, love your neighbor" (abridged: Matthew 22 above).

There are a lot of ways we as Christians might "particularize" or " divvy-up" Jesus' Commandment to "Love one another" however every time we do we mitigate, or lessen, it's impact for us to change, repent, and just do.... Preachers may get up on their high horse and thunder condemnation upon the liberality of the Christ-filled challenge to love all men and women as God loves the world. But I mostly think such preaching is to protect the exclusionary laws of the Christian faith as it has developed since Jesus.

Meaning, the Church, no less than the Jewish Templed religious leaders then, have corrupted God's Word by adding their own nuances and laws to a very simple command. If you love God this will be shown by your love for your fellow man.

And to those preachers who do love and challenge their congregations to love apart from the ritualization of loving others are to be commended. We, as human beings, love idols, self-righteousness, and are given to pride and prejudice. It is unnatural to our God-given Image lying within us, but wholly natural to our fallen natures given to sin and evil.

By the Spirit of God, and in the power of Jesus' atoning resurrection, let us resist such unloving urges and state clearly to our very religious Christian brethren and sisters around us that God's love is pure, without preference or regard of person, and seeks our spiritual reformation to learn to love as God is Love.

Let us pray then to the our Lord and Savior that this become so in our lives and let go of all the societal and religious structures which say to hate our brothers and sisters, whether of the faith or not of the faith. This would be right and good giving supreme attention to the New Command and Testament of our Lord Jesus to live redeemed lives as hearts beating for one another instead of upon one another.

Amen

R.E. Slater
October 2, 2022

The SHEMA of Israel

https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0506.htm

Deuteronomy Chapter 6 דְּבָרִים

א  וְזֹאת הַמִּצְוָה, הַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, לְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם--לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ.	1 Now this is the commandment, the statutes, and the ordinances, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it--
ב  לְמַעַן תִּירָא אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לִשְׁמֹר אֶת-כָּל-חֻקֹּתָיו וּמִצְוֺתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָ, אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבֶן-בִּנְךָ, כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ--וּלְמַעַן, יַאֲרִכֻן יָמֶיךָ.	2 that thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.
ג  וְשָׁמַעְתָּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת, אֲשֶׁר יִיטַב לְךָ, וַאֲשֶׁר תִּרְבּוּן מְאֹד:  כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֶיךָ, לָךְ--אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב, וּדְבָשׁ.  {פ}	3 Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the LORD, the God of thy fathers, hath promised unto thee--a land flowing with milk and honey. {P}
ד  שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל:  יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.	4 Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.
ה  וְאָהַבְתָּ, אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ, וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ.	5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
ו  וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם--עַל-לְבָבֶךָ.	6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart;
ז  וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ, וְדִבַּרְתָּ בָּם, בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ, וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ.	7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
ח  וּקְשַׁרְתָּם לְאוֹת, עַל-יָדֶךָ; וְהָיוּ לְטֹטָפֹת, בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ.	8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes.
ט  וּכְתַבְתָּם עַל-מְזֻזוֹת בֵּיתֶךָ, וּבִשְׁעָרֶיךָ.  {ס}	9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates. {S}
י  וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב--לָתֶת לָךְ:  עָרִים גְּדֹלֹת וְטֹבֹת, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-בָנִיתָ.	10 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land which He swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee--great and goodly cities, which thou didst not build,
יא  וּבָתִּים מְלֵאִים כָּל-טוּב, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-מִלֵּאתָ, וּבֹרֹת חֲצוּבִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא-חָצַבְתָּ, כְּרָמִים וְזֵיתִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא-נָטָעְתָּ; וְאָכַלְתָּ, וְשָׂבָעְתָּ.	11 and houses full of all good things, which thou didst not fill, and cisterns hewn out, which thou didst not hew, vineyards and olive-trees, which thou didst not plant, and thou shalt eat and be satisfied--
יב  הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ, פֶּן-תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת-יְהוָה, אֲשֶׁר הוֹצִיאֲךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים.	12 then beware lest thou forget the LORD, who brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
יג  אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא, וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד; וּבִשְׁמוֹ, תִּשָּׁבֵעַ.	13 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; and Him shalt thou serve, and by His name shalt thou swear.
יד  לֹא תֵלְכוּן, אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים--מֵאֱלֹהֵי, הָעַמִּים, אֲשֶׁר, סְבִיבוֹתֵיכֶם.	14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples that are round about you;
טו  כִּי אֵל קַנָּא יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּקִרְבֶּךָ:  פֶּן-יֶחֱרֶה אַף-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בָּךְ, וְהִשְׁמִידְךָ, מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה.  {ס}	15 for a jealous God, even the LORD thy God, is in the midst of thee; lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and He destroy thee from off the face of the earth. {S}
טז  לֹא תְנַסּוּ, אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, כַּאֲשֶׁר נִסִּיתֶם, בַּמַּסָּה.	16 Ye shall not try the LORD your God, as ye tried Him in Massah.
יז  שָׁמוֹר תִּשְׁמְרוּן, אֶת-מִצְוֺת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, וְעֵדֹתָיו וְחֻקָּיו, אֲשֶׁר צִוָּךְ.	17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and His testimonies, and His statutes, which He hath commanded thee.
יח  וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב, בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה--לְמַעַן, יִיטַב לָךְ, וּבָאתָ וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַטֹּבָה, אֲשֶׁר-נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ.	18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers,
יט  לַהֲדֹף אֶת-כָּל-אֹיְבֶיךָ, מִפָּנֶיךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר, דִּבֶּר יְהוָה.  {ס}	19 to thrust out all thine enemies from before thee, as the LORD hath spoken. {S}
כ  כִּי-יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ מָחָר, לֵאמֹר:  מָה הָעֵדֹת, וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, אֶתְכֶם.	20 When thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying: 'What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the ordinances, which the LORD our God hath commanded you?
כא  וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ, עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרָיִם; וַיֹּצִיאֵנוּ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרַיִם, בְּיָד חֲזָקָה.	21 then thou shalt say unto thy son: 'We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
כב  וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה אוֹתֹת וּמֹפְתִים גְּדֹלִים וְרָעִים בְּמִצְרַיִם, בְּפַרְעֹה וּבְכָל-בֵּיתוֹ--לְעֵינֵינוּ.	22 And the LORD showed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his house, before our eyes.
כג  וְאוֹתָנוּ, הוֹצִיא מִשָּׁם--לְמַעַן, הָבִיא אֹתָנוּ, לָתֶת לָנוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ.	23 And He brought us out from thence, that He might bring us in, to give us the land which He swore unto our fathers.
כד  וַיְצַוֵּנוּ יְהוָה, לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת-כָּל-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה, לְיִרְאָה, אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ--לְטוֹב לָנוּ כָּל-הַיָּמִים, לְחַיֹּתֵנוּ כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.	24 And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.
כה  וּצְדָקָה, תִּהְיֶה-לָּנוּ:  כִּי-נִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת-כָּל-הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ--כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּנוּ.  {ס}	25 And it shall be righteousness unto us, if we observe to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as He hath commanded us.' {S}

* * * * * *

Love Your Neighbor:

How [the Shema] Became the Golden Rule

article link

The biblical precept “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” has long been understood in Jewish and Christian circles as universal, a transcendent principle encompassing the whole Torah. However, in Leviticus, it is actually one of many action-oriented commandments focused on Israelite social cohesion.

Prof. John J. Collins is Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale University. He received his Ph. D. from Harvard (1972) and holds honorary degrees from the University College Dublin and the University of Zurich. Collins' most recent books are The Invention of Judaism. Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul (University of California, 2017), and What Are Biblical Values? (Yale, 2019). He serves as general editor of the Anchor Yale Bible and Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library and has received the Burkitt medal for biblical scholarship from the British Academy.

The Neighbor as Kinsman

We are familiar with the precept in Leviticus 19:18 וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” which is found in the Holiness Collection (Leviticus 17–26). The Collection, which intersperses moral laws with ritual ones, gets its name from a refrain, found for example in the introduction to this chapter:

The remainder of the chapter is usually divided into two panels, vv. 3–18 and 19–36, with this law, וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְ־הוָה “love your neighbor as yourself, I am YHWH” marking the end of the first panel. Despite general familiarity with this injunction, each of its three Hebrew words requires unpacking.

1. What Is Love?

What does it mean to “love” one’s neighbor? We often think of this as requiring us to feel something, but its more probable meaning becomes clear when we look at some of the preceding laws:

ויקרא יט:יג לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק אֶת רֵעֲךָ וְלֹא תִגְזֹל לֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר.... יט:טו לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ עָוֶל בַּמִּשְׁפָּט לֹא תִשָּׂא פְנֵי דָל וְלֹא תֶהְדַּר פְּנֵי גָדוֹל בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ. יט:טז לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ אֲנִי יְ־הוָה.

 

Lev 19:13 You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning…. 19:15 You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor. 19:16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not profit by the blood of your neighbor: I am YHWH.

Love, then, is not an emotion here, but refers to treating one’s neighbor justly—the manner you might treat someone whom you do love.[1]

2. Who Is Your Neighbor?

Most contemporary scholars agree that the “neighbor” (רע) in Leviticus 19 refers to fellow-members of the Israelite or Judahite community.[2] Although the word itself does not necessarily refer to Israelites, the context here is determinative:

ויקרא יט:יז לֹא תִשְׂנָא אֶת אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת עֲמִיתֶךָ וְלֹא תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא. יט:יח לֹא תִקֹּם וְלֹא תִטֹּר אֶת בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְ־הוָה.

 

Lev 19:17 You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall reprove your kinsman, and not incur guilt because of him. 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor like yourself; I am YHWH.”

The term “neighbor” is the fourth in a sequence that includes “brother,” “kinsman,” and “your people.” Neighbor, like the previous three, refers to a fellow Israelite.

3. “Like Yourself” or “One Who Is Like You”?

The most difficult part of the formulation in Leviticus 19:18 is the use of the word kamokha.[3] The more common interpretation is to construe the phrase adverbially, i.e., the way you should love them is the same way you love yourself. For example, Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1167) writes:

ועל דעתי: שהוא כמשמעו, שיאהב הטוב לחבירו כאשר יאהב לנפשו.

 

In my opinion, it means what it sounds like, that one should love for good to happen to one’s neighbor the way one would love it for oneself.

This is also the way the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translates the term, “as yourself,” ὡς σεαυτόν. Scholars almost invariably take this as “a reflexive, adverbial modifier that defines the manner in which one should love.”[4]

The other interpretation is to understand the phrase adjectivally, i.e., “(only) if he is like you.” Among medieval Jewish interpreters, this is suggested by ibn Ezra’s contemporary, Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam):

אם הוא רעך שהוא אדם טוב כמוך.[5] אבל אם הוא רשע – כדכתיב: יראת י״י שנאת רע.

 

If he is your neighbor, that is he is a good person like you. But if he is wicked, it is thus written (Prov 8:13) “Fear of the LORD is hating the wicked.”

Alternatively, it could be considered as explanatory, as suggested by Hartwig Wessely (1725–1805), “love your neighbor, that is someone like you” (liebe deinen Nächsten wie dich selbst),[6] and most famously in the Die Schrift Bible translation of Martin Buber (1878–1965) and Franz Rosenzweig (1886–1929), “love your fellow, [he is] like you,” (halte lieb deinen Genossen, dir gleich).[7] All of these readings are grammatically possible, but the parallel command in the second panel of this chapter discounts this latter interpretation.

Is the Alien “Like You”?

Leviticus 19:18 should not be understood in isolation. Toward the end of the second panel, we find a parallel to the love your neighbor passage:

ויקרא יט:לג וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תוֹנוּ אֹתוֹ. יט:לד כְּאֶזְרָח מִכֶּם יִהְיֶה לָכֶם הַגֵּר הַגָּר אִתְּכֶם וְאָהַבְתָּ לוֹ כָּמוֹךָ כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.

 

Lev 19:33 When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress him. 19:34 The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the native born among you; you shall love the alien like yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am YHWH your God.

The word ger (here rendered “alien”) occurs 92 times in the Hebrew Bible—21 times in H— and refers not to all foreigners, but only to one who has settled in the land for some time and has special legal status as a resident alien.[8] Leviticus repeatedly commands that the גר be treated like the native born, even though he is still different. In this case, the command to “love him” is identical to the earlier command to love one’s neighbor.

Since the ger by definition is not an Israelite, kamokha here cannot have an adjectival force (the alien who is like you).[9] The reason given for the command to love the alien is “for you were aliens in the land of Egypt,” a reason often given in support of concern for the alien (Exod 22:20; 23:9; Deut 10:19; 23:8). Kamokha then—here and in verse 18—is adverbial, which is to say that it clarifies how one should love.[10]

This verse does not ground the command in ontology, in the creation of all human beings in the image of God. If it did, there would be no reason to distinguish between the ger and other kinds of foreigners. It is grounded in analogous experience, and calls to mind the Golden Rule: one should treat others as one would wish to be treated oneself.

Summary: The Meaning of the Law

In short, a few things seem clear regarding the law of loving one’s neighbor as oneself, and its corollary of loving the ger, in its original context:

1. Love here is not a matter of feelings but of practice.
2. The love command is not universal but applies only to Israelites (19:18) and to the ger (19:34). It is primarily concerned with relations within the Israelite community, whether with other Israelites or with long-term foreigners living in their midst.
3. The preposition and suffix kamokha is used adverbially to indicate how one should love the neighbor or the alien.

Thus, to love one’s neighbors (fellow-Israelites) as oneself is to treat them as you yourself would wish to be treated. To treat aliens as like oneself is to treat them as one would native-born Israelites.

Second Temple Interpretations

Second Temple authors in the Greek and Roman periods made use of these laws in their works. For example, the book of Jubilees (3rd cent. B.C.E.) makes several allusions to the love commandment, in the stories of Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and the exodus, though it never cites the commandment to love the ger, thus restricting its application to fellow Jews.[11] The Damascus Document (2nd cent. B.C.E.) clearly alludes to both, instructing the members of the group (CD 6:20):

לאהוב אישׁ את אחיהו כמוהו ‎ולהחזיק ביד עני ואביון 〚 〛 וגר ולדרוש איש את שלום אחיהו

 

To love his brother like himself,[12] support the poor, destitute, and ger, and to seek each man the peace of his brother.

By the time of the Scrolls, the ger is probably—though not certainly—a proselyte, and thus, ipso facto, a reference only to Jews.[13] The usage in these works has the same function as in Leviticus, namely to ensure the cohesion of the group. In the first and second centuries C.E., however, the understanding of the law undergoes a change.

The Emergence of the Golden Rule

In a series of stories about the 1st cent. B.C.E. sage, Hillel the Elder, the Babylonian Talmud tells the following story (Venice printing):

שוב מעשה בגוי אחד שבא לפני שמאי אמר ליה גיירני ע"מ שתלמדיני כל התורה כולה כשאני עומד על רגל אחת דחפו באמת הבניין שבידו בא לפני הילל גייריה א[מר] ליה דעלך סני לחברך לא תעביד זו היא כל התורה כולה ואידך פירושה הוא זיל גמור.

 

It happened again that a gentile came before Shammai. He said to him: “Convert me on the condition that you teach me the entire Torah as I stand on one leg.” He pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. [The gentile] came before Hillel, who converted him. He (=Hillel) said to him: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. This is the whole entire Torah; the rest is its explanation. Go and learn.”

While Hillel is not quoting Leviticus, this seems to be an interpretation of that verse, since, as noted above, the verse is about actions and not about feelings. In fact, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (ca. 6th–8th C.E.), a rabbinic-Jewish translation into Aramaic which utilizes midrashic tropes, translates Leviticus 19:18 to match Hillel’s maxim:

ותרחמיה לחברך דמן אנת סני לך לא תעביד ליה

 

Love your fellow, that which is hateful to you, do not do to him.[14]

What is significant here is that, to Hillel, this maxim is a transcendent moral principle, encompassing all other commandments. While Hillel lived in the 1st century B.C.E., the Babylonian Talmud was only written in the 6th century C.E., which makes it difficult to evaluate this story’s historical validity. Nevertheless, a much earlier source, the Sifra—a 3rd century rabbinic commentary on Leviticus—ascribes a similar sentiment to the 2nd cent. C.E. sage, Rabbi Akiva (Sifra, Kedoshim 2:4.12):

ואהבת לרעך כמוך, רבי עקיבא אומר זה כלל גדול בתורה

 

“Love your neighbor as yourself”—Rabbi Akiva says: “This is a great general principle in the Torah.”

In between Hillel and Rabbi Akiva, another Jewish teacher also advocated for this law as an overarching ethical principle.

Love Your Neighbor in the Gospels

In the Gospel of Mark, the earliest of the canonical gospels, Jesus declares this law to be one of the two most important commandments, together with the command to love God found in the Shema:

Mark 12:28 One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” 12:29 Jesus answered, “The first is (Deut 6:4–5), ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; 12:30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 12:31 The second is this (Lev 19:18), ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”[15]

The Gospel of Matthew, which includes this story from Mark in its own words, adds “on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (22:40).[16] The parallel passage in Luke 10:25–28, the third Synoptic Gospel, runs the two passages—love God and love your neighbor—together, as if it were one passage:

Luke 10:25 Just then Torah scholar (nomikos) stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 10:26 He (Jesus) said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” 10:27 He (the Torah scholar) answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 10:28 And he (Jesus) said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”[17]

Paul’s Epistles

One of the prominent early apostles of Jesus, also a Jew, presents this law in a similar way as the Talmud does for Hillel. For example, in Romans, Paul writes:

Romans 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 13:9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.[18]

Here Paul explicitly describes the ethical commandments in the Decalogue as deriving from this principle. Similarly, Paul writes in Galatians:

Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[19]

From all these sources, it is clear that by the first century of the common era, Leviticus 19:18 had attained an exalted status among Jewish interpreters as an especially important commandment, transcendent in that it included all others.[20]

Moderate Expansions of the Law

Nothing in the rabbinic or New Testament sources states that the law applies to all human beings. Instead, the most natural interpretation in context is that it applies within a given group: Israelites, Jews, early Christians, etc. [21] Nevertheless, some moderate expansions already appear during this period.

The Good Samaritan

For example, the version of the story in the Gospel of Luke (quoted above) broadens the horizon, if only somewhat, in the parable of the Good Samaritan. After Jesus elicits the response from the questioner that loving God and loving one’s neighbor are the most important commandments, the story continues with the law expert challenging Jesus with “and who is my neighbor?” Jesus responds with a parable in which a priest (kohen) and a Levite fail to take care of a fellow injured Jew, and instead a Samaritan does so.

Jesus then asks which one of these three people fulfilled the principle of love your neighbor, and the man answers that it was the Samaritan. The point here is that the Samaritan, a “Jew-like” person—Samaritans see themselves as Israelites and follow (a version of) the Torah similar to but distinct from the Masoretic Text—but not actually a Jew, and one who certainly does not belong to the questioner’s core group, counts as a neighbor. This is a somewhat expansive definition of neighbor, but it is unclear that it would apply to gentiles, who are in no way connected to Israel.[22]

Love your Enemy: The Sermons of Jesus

The most striking innovation in the Gospels, exceptional in ancient literature, is the command to love one’s enemies, which is framed as an expansion of the laws in Leviticus. Thus, in the Gospel of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says:

Matthew 5:43 You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 5:45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors (=bad people) do the same? 5:47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?[23]

From the final verse, it is clear that Jesus is speaking only to Jews. Moreover, his opening reference about hating enemies is not from the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, neither is loving one’s enemy, though a number of texts from the Hebrew Bible comment on the importance of treating one’s enemy properly:

שמות כג:ד כִּי תִפְגַּע שׁוֹר אֹיִבְךָ אוֹ חֲמֹרוֹ תֹּעֶה הָשֵׁב תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ. כג:ה כִּי תִרְאֶה חֲמוֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ רֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ וְחָדַלְתָּ מֵעֲזֹב לוֹ עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב עִמּוֹ.

 

Exod 23:4 4 When you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, you must take it back to him. 23:5 When you see the ass of your enemy lying under its burden and would refrain from raising it, you must nevertheless raise it with him.

 

משלי כד:יז בִּנְפֹל (אויביך) [אוֹיִבְךָ] אַל תִּשְׂמָח וּבִכָּשְׁלוֹ אַל יָגֵל לִבֶּךָ.

 

Prov 24:17 If your enemy falls, do not exult; If he trips, let your heart not rejoice.

 

משלי כה:כא אִם רָעֵב שֹׂנַאֲךָ הַאֲכִלֵהוּ לָחֶם וְאִם צָמֵא הַשְׁקֵהוּ מָיִם.

 

Prov 25:21 If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; If he is thirsty, give him water to drink.

None of the sources speak of loving the enemy, thus Jesus can be seen as taking the biblical values a step further, which is an important theme in Sermon on the Mount. (In both cases, “enemy” likely refers to “enemy Jews.”) The connection between Jesus’ speech and the verses in the Hebrew Bible is clearer when we remember that “love” here, as in Leviticus 19, refers mainly to actions and not feelings.

A parallel command appears in Luke’s Sermon on the Plain:

Luke 6:27 But I say to you that listen, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 6:29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you. 6:32 If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 6:33 If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 6:34 If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.[24]

That Jesus is referring to actions rather than feelings is even clearer in Luke than in Matthew, as he adduces practical examples such as charity, praying for one’s enemies, and allowing them to abuse you.

Love All Humanity?

The command to love one’s neighbor as oneself is undoubtedly one of the great contributions of the Hebrew Bible to the ethical development of humanity. In context, the law was primarily concerned with the cohesion and identity of a particular people, yet the application of the “neighbor” would in time be extended to all people, and grounded in the recognition of shared humanity.

* * * * * *

Shema Yisrael

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Shema Yisrael

Shema Yisrael at the Knesset Menorah in Jerusalem
Halakhic texts relating to this article
Torah:	Deut. 6:4–9, Deut. 11:13–21 and Num. 15:37–41
Mishnah:	Berakhot ch. 1–3
Babylonian Talmud:	Berakhot
Jerusalem Talmud:	Berakhot
Mishneh Torah:	Mishneh Torah, Sefer Ahava ch. 1–4
Shulchan Aruch:	Orach Chayim 58–88
Other rabbinic codes:	Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, ch. 17

Indian jews praying "Shema Yisrael", illustration on a book cover

Shema Yisrael (Shema Israel or Sh'ma Yisrael; Hebrew: שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל Šəmaʿ Yīsrāʾēl, "Hear, O Israel") is a Jewish prayer (known as the Shema) that serves as a centerpiece of the morning and evening Jewish prayer services. Its first verse encapsulates the monotheistic essence of Judaism: "Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our God, YHWH is one" (Hebrew: שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד׃), found in Deuteronomy 6:4.^[1]

The first part can be translated as either "The LORD our God" or "The LORD is our God", and the second part as either "the LORD is one" or as "the one LORD" (in the sense of "the LORD alone"), since Hebrew does not normally use a copula in the present tense, so translators must decide by inference whether one is appropriate in English. The word used for "the LORD" is the tetragrammaton YHWH.

Observant Jews consider the Shema to be the most important part of the prayer service in Judaism, and its twice-daily recitation as a mitzvah (religious commandment). Also, it is traditional for Jews to say the Shema as their last words, and for parents to teach their children to say it before they go to sleep at night.^[2][3]

The term Shema is used by extension to refer to the whole part of the daily prayers that commences with Shema Yisrael and comprises Deuteronomy 6:4–9, 11:13–21, and Numbers 15:37–41. These sections of the Torah are read in the weekly Torah portions Va'etchanan, Eikev, and Shlach, respectively.

History

Originally, the Shema consisted of only one verse: Deuteronomy 6:4 (see Talmud Sukkah 42a and Berachot 13b). The recitation of the Shema in the liturgy, however, consists of three portions: Deuteronomy 6:4–9, 11:13–21, and Numbers 15:37–41. The three portions are mentioned in the Mishnah (Berachot 2:2). The three portions relate to central issues of Jewish belief. In the Mishnah (Berakhot 2:5) the reciting of the shema was linked with re-affirming a personal relationship with God's rule. Literally, reciting the shema was stated as "receiving the kingdom of heaven." ["Heaven" is a metaphor for God. The best texts of the Mishnah, Kaufmann and Parma, do not have the addition "yoke" that is found in later printed Mishnahs: "receive the {yoke of the} kingdom of Heaven." The original statement appears to have been "to receive the kingdom of Heaven".]

Additionally, the Talmud points out that subtle references to the Ten Commandments can be found in the three portions. As the Ten Commandments were removed from daily prayer in the Mishnaic period (70–200 CE), the Shema is seen as an opportunity to commemorate the Ten Commandments.

There are two larger-print letters in the first sentence ('ayin ע and daleth ד) which, when combined, spell "עד". In Hebrew this means "witness". The idea thus conveyed is that through the recitation or proclamation of the Shema one is a living witness testifying to the truth of its message. Modern Kabbalistic schools, namely that of the Ari, teach that when one recites the last letter of the word ecḥad (אחד), meaning "one", he is to intend that he is ready to "die into God".^{[citation needed]}

Content

Shema Yisrael

The first paragraph of the Shema seen in a Tefillin scroll

The first, pivotal, words of the Shema are:

שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד׃
Sh'ma Yisra'el, YHWH 'eloheinu, YHWH 'eḥad:

Rabbinic Judaism teaches that the Tetragrammaton (י-ה-ו-ה), YHWH, is the ineffable and actual name of God, and as such is not read aloud in the Shema but is traditionally replaced with אדני, Adonai ("LORD"). For that reason, the Shema is recited aloud as Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Eḥad ("Hear, O Israel: the LORD is our God, the LORD is One.")

The literal word meanings are roughly as follows:^{[citation needed]}

Sh'ma: literally means listen, heed, or hear and do (according to the Targum, accept)

Yisrael: Israel, in the sense of the people or congregation of Israel

Adonai: often translated as "LORD", it is read in place of the YHWH written in the Hebrew text; Samaritans say Shema, which is Aramaic for "the [Divine] Name" and is the exact equivalent of the Hebrew ha-Shem, which Rabbinic Jews substitute for Adonai in a non-liturgical context such as everyday speech.

Eloheinu: the plural 1st person possessive of אֱלֹהִים‎ Elohim, meaning "our God".

Echad: the unified and cardinal number One אֶחָד‎

This first verse of the Shema relates to the kingship of God. The first verse, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is One LORD", has always been regarded as the confession of belief in the One God. Due to the ambiguity of the possible ways to translate the Hebrew passage, there are several possible renderings:

"Hear, O Israel! Adonai is our God! Adonai is One!", and

"Hear, O Israel! Adonai is our God – Adonai alone."

Many commentaries have been written about the subtle differences between the translations. There is an emphasis on the oneness of God and on the sole worship of God by Israel. There are other translations, though most retain one or the other emphases.

Baruch Shem

בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד

Baruch shem kevod malchuto le'olam va'ed

"Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever"

The second line is a rabbinic addition and is recited silently during congregational worship (except on Yom Kippur, when it is recited aloud). In Reform and Conservative Judaism, it is recited aloud, but in a quieter voice than the rest of the prayer. It was originally a liturgical response in use in the Temple when the name of God was pronounced and took the form of Baruch shem k’vod l’olam, "Blessed be his glorious name forever" (Psalm 72:19). However, in time the words malchuto ("His kingdom") and va’ed ("for ever and ever") were added. Malchuto was introduced by the rabbis during Roman rule as a counter to the claim of divine honors by Roman emperors. Va’ed was introduced at the time of the Second Temple to contrast the view of the minim (heretics) that there is no life after death.^[4]

V'ahavta

The following verses are commonly referred to as the V'ahavta according to the first word of the verse immediately following the Shema, or in Classical Hebrew V'ahav'ta meaning "and you shall love...". They contain the command to love God with all one's heart, soul, and might (Deuteronomy 6:5). The Talmud emphasizes that you will, at some point, whether you choose to or not, and therefore uses "shall" – future tense – love God.^[5]

Then verse 7 goes on to remind the community to remember all the commandments and to "teach them diligently to your children and speak of them when you sit down and when you walk, when you lie down and when you rise",^[5] to recite the words of God when retiring or rising; to bind those words "on thy arm and thy head" (classically Jewish oral tradition interprets as tefillin), and to "inscribe them on the door-posts of your house and on your gates" (referring to mezuzah).

V'haya im shamoa

The passage following the Shema and V'ahavta relates to the issue of reward and punishment. It contains the promise of reward for serving God with all one's heart, soul, and might (Deut 11:13) and for the fulfillment of the laws. It also contains punishment for transgression. It also contains a repetition of the contents of the first portion - but this time spoken to the second person plural, (Whereas the first portion is directed to the individual Jew, this time it is directed to the whole community, all the Jews).

Vayomer

The third portion relates to the issue of redemption. Specifically, it contains the law concerning the tzitzit (Numbers 15:37-41) as a reminder that all laws of God are obeyed, as a warning against following evil inclinations and in remembrance of the exodus from Egypt. For the prophets and rabbis, the exodus from Egypt is paradigmatic of Jewish faith that God redeems from all forms of foreign domination. It can be found in the portion "Shlach Lecha" in the book of Numbers.

Summary

In summary, the content flows from the assertion of the oneness of God's kingship. Thus, in the first portion, there is a command to love God with all one's heart, soul, and might, and to remember and teach these very important words to the children throughout the day. Obeying these commands, says the second portion, will lead to rewards, and disobeying them will lead to punishment. To ensure fulfillment of these key commands, God also commands in the third portion a practical reminder, wearing the tzitzit, "that ye may remember and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God."

The full content verse by verse, in Hebrew, English transliteration, and English translation, can be found on the jewfaq.org website.^[6]

The second line quoted, "Blessed be the Name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever", was originally a congregational response to the declaration of the Oneness of God; it is therefore often printed in small font and recited in an undertone, as recognition that it is not, itself, a part of the cited biblical verses. The third section of the Shema ends with Numbers 15:41, but traditional Jews end the recitation of the Shema by reciting the first word of the following blessing, Emet, or "Truth" without interruption.

Jewish women and the Shema

Main article: Women in Judaism

In Orthodox Judaism, women are not required to daily recite the Shema (as a command from the Torah),^[7] as with other time-bound requirements which might impinge on their traditional familial obligations, although they are obligated to pray at least once daily without a specific liturgy requirement, and many fulfill that obligation through prayers like the Shema.

Conservative Judaism generally regards Jewish women as being obligated to recite the Shema at the same times as men.

Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism do not regard gender-related traditional Jewish ritual requirements as necessary in modern circumstances, including obligations for men, but not women, to pray specific prayers at specific times. Instead, both genders may fulfill all requirements.

Accompanying blessings

The blessings preceding and following the Shema are traditionally credited to the members of the Great Assembly. They were first instituted in the liturgy of the Temple in Jerusalem.

According to the Talmud, the reading of the Shema morning and evening fulfills the commandment "You shall meditate therein day and night". As soon as a child begins to speak, his father is directed to teach him the verse "Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob",^[8] and teach him to read the Shema.^[9] The reciting of the first verse of the Shema is called "the acceptance of the yoke of the kingship of God" (kabalat ol malchut shamayim).^[10] Judah ha-Nasi, who spent all day involved with his studies and teaching, said just the first verse of the Shema in the morning "as he passed his hands over his eyes",^[11] which appears to be the origin of the custom to cover the eyes with the right hand while reciting the first verse.

The first verse of the Shema is recited aloud, simultaneously by the hazzan and the congregation, which responds with the rabbinically instituted Baruch Shem ("Blessed be the Name") in silence before continuing the rest of Shema. Only on Yom Kippur is this response said aloud. The remainder of the Shema is read in silence. Sephardim recite the whole of the Shema aloud, except the Baruch Shem. Reform Jews also recite the whole of the first paragraph of the Shema aloud.

Blessings

During Shacharit, two blessings are recited before the Shema and one after the Shema.^[12] There is a question in Jewish law as to whether these blessings are on the Shema, or surrounding the Shema. The conclusion that has been drawn is that they are surrounding the Shema, because the structure is similar to that of blessings of the Torah, and there is doubt as to whether such blessings would actually enhance the Shema.^[13] The two blessings that are recited before the Shema are Yotzer ohr and Ahava Rabbah/Ahavat Olam. The blessing after is known as Emet Vayatziv.

During Maariv, there are two blessings before the Shema and two after.^[12] The two before are HaMaariv Aravim and Ahavat Olam. The two after are Emet V'Emunah and Hashkiveinu. Ashkenazim add Baruch Hashem L'Olam outside of Israel on weekdays.

Overall, the three blessings in the morning and four in the evening which accompany the Shema sum to seven, in accordance with the verse in Psalms: "I praise You seven times each day for Your just rules."^[14]

Bedtime Shema

Before going to sleep, the first paragraph of the Shema is recited. This is not only a commandment directly given in the Bible (in Deuteronomy 6:6–7), but is also alluded to from verses such as "Commune with your own heart upon your bed" (Psalms 4:4).

Some also have the custom to read all three paragraphs, along with a whole list of sections from Psalms, Tachanun, and other prayers. Altogether this is known as the K'riat Shema she-al ha-mitah. According to Arizal, reading this prayer with great concentration is also effective in cleansing one from sin. This is discussed in the Tanya.^[15]

Other instances

The exhortation by the Kohen in calling Israel to arms against an enemy (which does not apply when the Temple in Jerusalem is not standing) also includes Shema Yisrael.^[16]

According to the Talmud, Rabbi Akiva patiently endured while his flesh was being torn with iron combs, and died reciting the Shema. He pronounced the last word of the sentence, Eḥad ("one") with his last breath.^[17] Since then, it has been traditional for Jews to say the Shema as their last words. In 2006 Roi Klein, a major in the Israel Defense Forces, said the Shema before jumping on a live grenade and dying to save his fellow soldiers.^[18]

Other religious literature

Reformulations of the Shema appear in later Jewish Scripture, Second Temple literature, and New Testament texts.^[19][20][21] In these texts, sometimes new features are added to the Shema (e.g. 2 Kings 19:19; Zech. 14:9), in others, it is abbreviated to “God is One” (Philo, Spec. 1.30), “one God” (Josephus, C. Ap. 2.193), or “God alone” (2 Maccabees 7:37).^[22] The following is a selection of significant occurrences.^[23]

In later Jewish scripture:

• 2 Kings 19:19: "And now, O Lord our God, please deliver us from his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You are the Lord God alone."^[24]
• Zechariah 14:9: "And the Lord shall become King over all the earth; on that day shall the Lord be one, and His name one."^[25]
• Malachi 2:10: "Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us? Why should we betray, each one his brother, to profane the covenant of our forefathers?"^[26]

In Second Temple literature:

• Letter of Aristeas 132: "But first of all he taught that God is one, and that his power is made manifest in all things, and that every place is filled with his sovereignty, and that nothing done by men on earth secretly escapes his notice, but that all that anyone does and all that is to be is manifest to him."^[27]
• 2 Maccabees 7:37-38: "I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our fathers, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by afflictions and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God, and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty which has justly fallen on our whole nation."^[28]
• Philo, On Special Laws 1.30: "This lesson he continually repeats, sometimes saying that God is one and the Framer and Maker of all things, sometimes that He is Lord of created beings, because stability and fixity and lordship are by nature vested in Him alone."
• Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 4.199: "And let there be neither an altar nor a temple in any other city; for God is but one, and the nation of the Hebrews is but one."^[29]
• Josephus, Against Apion 2.193: "There ought also to be but one temple for one God; for likeness is the constant foundation of agreement. This temple ought to be common to all men, because he is the common God of all men."^[30]

In the New Testament:

• Mark 12:28-29 (NASB): One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord.'"
• Romans 3:29-30 (NASB): "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
• James 2:19 (NASB): "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder."

Music and film

• Arnold Schoenberg used it as part of the story to his narrative orchestral work A Survivor from Warsaw (1947).
• In Parade, a musical based on true events, the main character Leo Frank, wrongly accused of the murder of a child worker at the pencil factory he manages, recites the Shema Yisrael as a vigilante gang kidnap and hang him in the final scenes of the work.
• Pop versions have been published by Mordechai ben David and Sarit Hadad.
• In Pi, Max Cohen and Lenny Meyer can be seen reciting the first three verses of the Shema.
• In The Shoes of the Fisherman, Anthony Quinn, as the fictional Pope Kiril, explores the back streets of Rome disguised as a simple priest, and recites the Shema at the bedside of a dying Roman Jew.
• Reggae singer Matisyahu recites the Shema in his songs "Got No water" and "Tel Aviv'n".
• Yaakov Shwekey, in his "Shema Yisrael", used the story of Rabbi Eliezer Silver's saving Jewish children hidden in Christian monasteries following the Holocaust by reciting the first line of the Shema.
• Singer Justin Bieber says the Shema before each public performance with his manager Scooter Braun, who is Jewish.^[31]
• Italian parody band Nanowar of Steel paraphrased it as "Shema Yggdrasil" in their 2019 single Valhallelujah.^[32]

Television

In episode 9 of season 3 of the television series The Man in the High Castle, the character Frank Frink recites the Shema just before he is executed.

In the Northern Exposure episode "Kaddish for Uncle Manny", Joel Fleischman doubts the sincerity of a burly itinerant lumberjack who arrives in response to Maurice Minnifield's offer of free food and lodging to participate in a minyan; he asks the man to recite the Shema, which he does.

In episode 4 of season 2 of the television series Shtisel (2015), Rebetzen Erblich asks her friend Bube Malka to recite the Shema with her as she is preparing to die.

In episode of season 1 of the television series The Sandman, Death comes from an old Jewish man, Harry who recites the Shema before dying.^[33]

Divine unity of the Shema in Hasidic philosophy

See also: Jewish philosophy, Kabbalah, and Hasidic philosophy

Schneur Zalman of Liadi articulated Divine Unity in Hasidic philosophy.

The second section of the Tanya brings the mystical panentheism of the founder of Hasidic Judaism, the Baal Shem Tov, into philosophical explanation. It outlines the Hasidic interpretation of God's Unity in the first two lines of the Shema, based upon their interpretation in Kabbalah. The emphasis on Divine Omnipresence and immanence lies behind Hasidic joy and devekut, and its stress on transforming the material into spiritual worship. In this internalisation of Kabbalistic ideas, the Hasidic follower seeks to reveal the Unity and hidden holiness in all activities of life.

Medieval, rationalist Jewish philosophers (exponents of Hakirah–rational "investigation" from first principles in support of Judaism), such as Maimonides, describe Biblical monotheism to mean that there is only one God, and his essence is a unique, simple, infinite Unity. Jewish mysticism provides a philosophic paradox, by dividing God's Unity into God's essence and emanation.

In Kabbalah and especially Hasidism, God's Unity means that there is nothing independent of his essence. The new doctrine in Lurianic Kabbalah of God's tzimtzum ("withdrawal") received different interpretations after Isaac Luria, from the literal to the metaphorical. To Hasidism and Schneur Zalman, it is unthinkable for the "withdrawal" of God that "makes possible" Creation, to be taken literally. The paradox of Tzimtzum only relates to the Ohr Ein Sof ("Infinite Light"), not the Ein Sof (Divine essence) itself. God's infinity is revealed in both complementary infinitude (infinite light) and finitude (finite light). The "withdrawal" was only a concealment of the Infinite Light into the essence of God, to allow the latent potentially finite light to emerge after the God limiting tzimtzum. God himself remains unaffected ("For I, the Lord, I have not changed" Malachi 3:6). His essence was One, alone, before Creation, and still One, alone, after Creation, without any change. As the tzimtzum only limits God to a concealment, therefore God's Unity remains Omnipresent. In the Baal Shem Tov's interpretation, Divine providence affects every detail of Creation. The "movement of a leaf in the wind" is part of the unfolding Divine presence, and is a necessary part of the complete Tikkun (Rectification in Kabbalah). This awareness of the loving Divine purpose and significance of each individual and his free will, awakens mystical love and awe of God.

Schneur Zalman explains that God's divided Unity has two levels, an unlimited level and a limited one, that are both paradoxically true. The main text of medieval Kabbalah, the Zohar, describes the first verse of the Shema ("Hear O Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is One") as the "Upper level Unity", and the second line ("Blessed be the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom forever") as the limited "Lower level Unity". Schneur Zalman gives the Chabad explanation of this. In his Kabbalah philosophy, all Creation is dependent on the limited, immanent, potentially finite, "Light that Fills all Worlds", that each Creation receives continually. All is bittul–nullified to the light, even though in our realm this complete dependence is hidden. From this perspective, of God knowing the Creation on its own terms, Creation exists, but the true essence of anything is only the Divine spark that continuously recreates it from nothing. God is One, as nothing has any independent existence without this continual flow of Divine Will to Create. This is the pantheistic Lower Level Unity.

In relation to God's essence, Creation affects no change or withdrawal. All Creation takes place "within" God. "There is nothing but God". The ability to create can only come from the infinite Divine essence, represented by the Tetragrammaton name of God. However, "It is not the essence of the Divine, to create Worlds and sustain them", as this ability is only external to the Infinite essence "outside" God. Creation only derives from God's revelatory antropomorphic "speech" (as in Genesis 1), and even this is unlike the external speech of Man, as it too remains "within" God. From this upper perspective of God knowing himself on his own terms, the created existence of Creation does not exist, as it is as nothing in relation to Zalman's philosophically constructed concept of God's essence. This monistic acosmism is the "Upper Level Unity", as from this perspective, only God exists.^[34]

In Islam

Further information: Shahada

The words used in the Shema prayer are similar to the words of verse 1 of Sura 112 (Al-Tawhid or Monotheism) in the Quran. The word أَحَدٌ in Arabic is similar to the word אֶחָד‎ in Hebrew.^{[citation needed]}

Arabic: قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ - Qul Hu Allāh ʾAḥad ("Say, He is Allah the One")

In Christianity

See also: Christian views on the Old Covenant

The Shema is one of the Old Testament sentences quoted in the New Testament. The Gospel of Mark 12:29–31 mentions that Jesus of Nazareth considered the opening exhortation of the Shema to be the first of his two greatest commandments and linked with a second (based on Leviticus 19:18b): "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." In Luke 10:25–27 the Shema is also linked with Leviticus 19:18. The verses Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18b both begin with ve'ahavta, "and you shall love". In Luke's Gospel, it appears that this connection between the two verses was already part of cultural discussion or practice.

Theologians Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch noted that "the heart is mentioned first (in Deuteronomy 6:5), as the seat of the emotions generally and of love in particular; then follows the soul (nephesh) as the centre of personality in man, to depict the love as pervading the entire self-consciousness; and to this is added, "with all the strength", i.e. of body and soul.^[35]

The Shema has also been incorporated into Christian liturgy, and is discussed in terms of the Trinity.^[36] In the Latin Catholic Liturgy of the Hours, the Shema is read during the Night Prayer or Compline every Saturday, thereby concluding the day's prayers.^[37] The Anglican Book of Common Prayer in use in Canada since 1962 has included the Shema in its Summary of the Law.^[38] Since 2012, when the Anglican Use version of the BCP, the Book of Divine Worship, was adapted for use in Canada, it has been recited by Roman Catholics as well.

The Anglican (and Orthodox Celtic) Church officially utilizes the Shema in the Daily Services. Namely with the decalogue.^[39]

See also

• Al-Ikhlas
• Mool Mantar
• Profession (religious)
• Tawhid

References

1. ^ Moberly, R. W. L. (1990). ""Yahweh is One": The Translation of the Shema". In Emerton, J. A. (ed.). Studies in the Pentateuch. Vetus Testamentum, Supplements. Vol. 41. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 209–215. doi:10.1163/9789004275645_012. ISBN 978-90-04-27564-5.
2. ^ "Bedtime Shema". MyJewishLearning.com.
3. ^ "Why Say Shema at Bedtime? - Didn't we just say it in Maariv". Chabad.org.
4. ^ "OzTorah » Blog Archive » Baruch Shem: The 2nd line of the Shema – Ask the Rabbi". www.oztorah.com.
5. ^ Jump up to:^a b The Complete Hebrew Bible (Tanach) based on JPS 1917 Hebrew-English translation Deuteronomy 6, accessed 29 November 2015
6. ^ "Judaism 101: Shema". www.jewfaq.org.
7. ^ Mishnah Berurah, O.C. 106:1 §7
8. ^ Deuteronomy 33:4
9. ^ Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 42a
10. ^ Mishnah Berachot 2:5
11. ^ Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 13b
12. ^ Jump up to:^a b Mishnah, Berachot 1:4
13. ^ With all your heart: the Shema in Jewish worship, practice and life By Meir Levin, ISBN 1-56871-215-4, page 207-212
14. ^ Psalms 119:164
15. ^ "[Otzar770 - Book page view]". otzar770.com.
16. ^ Deuteronomy 20:3; Babylonian Talmud Sotah 42a
17. ^ Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 61b
18. ^ Lubotzky, Asael (2016). From the Wilderness and Lebanon. Koren Publishers Jerusalem. pp. 56–57. ISBN 978-1-59264-417-9.
19. ^ Bruno, Christopher (2014). 'God Is One': The Function of 'Eis Ho Theos' as a Ground for Gentile Inclusion in Paul's Letters. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 24–113, 199–206.
20. ^ Richard Bauckham. “The Shema and 1 Corinthians 8:6 Again.” In One God, One People, One Future: Essays in Honor of N.T. Wright, edited by John Anthony Dunne and Eric Lewellen, 86-111. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2018.
21. ^ Mark D. Nanos. “Paul and the Jewish Tradition: The Ideology of the Shema.” In Celebrating Paul: Festchrift in Honor of Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, O.P., and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., edited by Peter Spitaler, 62–80. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2011.
22. ^ Bauckham, "The Shema and 1 Corinthians 8:6 again," 90.
23. ^ For a comprehensive list, see Bauckham, "The Shema and 1 Corinthians 8:6 Again," 103-108.
24. ^ "Melachim II - II Kings - Chapter 19". www.chabad.org. Retrieved 2020-05-01.
25. ^ "Zechariah - Chapter 14". www.chabad.org. Retrieved 2020-05-01.
26. ^ "Malachi - Chapter 2". www.chabad.org. Retrieved 2020-05-01.
27. ^ Outside the Bible : ancient Jewish writings related to Scripture. Feldman, Louis H., Kugel, James L., Schiffman, Lawrence H. Philadelphia. p. 2738. ISBN 978-0-8276-0933-4. OCLC 839395969.
28. ^ "Bible Gateway passage: 2 Maccabees 7:37-39 - Revised Standard Version". Bible Gateway. Retrieved 2020-05-01.
29. ^ "PACE - The Judean Antiquities". pace.webhosting.rug.nl. Retrieved 2020-05-01.
30. ^ "PACE - Against Apion". pace.webhosting.rug.nl. Retrieved 2020-05-01.
31. ^ "Justin Bieber: Tween Evangelist?". Huff Post. 9 February 2011.
32. ^ "Valhalleluja - Nanowar Of Steel". Letras.mus.br (in Brazilian Portuguese). Retrieved 2020-01-20.
33. ^ Fox, Mira (2022-08-05). "How Judaism, Scientology, Christianity, mythology and God knows what else haunt the dreams of Netflix's 'Sandman'". Forward. Retrieved 2022-09-17.
34. ^ English translation and commentary on the second section of Tanya: Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah-Gate of Unity and Faith from Chabad.org. Retrieved Oct. 2009
35. ^ Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament on Deuteronomy 6, accessed 6 November 2015
36. ^ See Brian J. Wright, "Deuteronomy 6:4 and the Trinity: How Can Jews and Christians Both Embrace the 'Echad' of the Shema?" https://www.academia.edu/12230043/Deuteronomy_6_4_and_the_Trinity_How_Can_Jews_and_Christians_Both_Embrace_the_Echad_of_the_Shema
37. ^ "Divine Office – Liturgy of the Hours of the Roman Catholic Church (Breviary) » Welcome to the Divine Office Community!". divineoffice.org. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
38. ^ "The Order for the Administration of The Lord's Supper or Holy Communion". 7 December 2013.
39. ^ "Liturgical BCP Prayer, "The Shama": A Prayer of Christendom and of the Culdees". Christ's Assembly. Orthodox Church of the Culdees (Celtic).

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Shema Yisrael.

• "Shema" at the Jewish Encyclopedia
• Recitation of the Shema Yisrael
• Explanation of the Shema by Rabeinu Bachya
• Anthology of Translations of Shema [1]