God, Conceptions

Jonah is an idiosyncratic prophet who disobeys, doesn’t really repent, and even gets angry with YHWH. While later interpretations seek to explain Jonah’s problematic behavior, in the book, it is Jonah who is confounded by YHWH’s actions.

Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine equate kingship with tyranny and corruption. How can we who embrace modern democracy relate to Rosh Hashanah’s focus on God’s enthronement as King?

Look and see! A sexually assaulted Jerusalem resists being blamed and shamed by Lamentations’ male narrator and demands that YHWH recognize her suffering.

Cursing YHWH is more than simply expressing contempt and irreverence. In the biblical world view, it is attempted deicide, and thus is punishable by death.

The Haggadah’s insistence that God, without an intermediary, saved the Israelites from Egypt is a veiled retort to the Christian belief that God relied on Jesus as an agent of redemption. Moreover, the midrash replaces the Arma Christi tradition of recounting the weapons Jesus used to save humanity during the Crucifixion with its own distinctively Jewish arsenal of redemption: pestilence, a sword, the Shechinah, the staff, and blood.

The creation accounts, the Garden of Eden, the innovations and life spans of early humans, and the flood story are best understood as an Axial Age critique of polytheistic, mythical cosmology.

In the ancient Near East, when a city was conquered, its gods were godnapped to the victor’s city. Where did YHWH go after the Temple was destroyed?

Hellenistic religion didn’t require charity. In contrast, the biblical command for charity is founded not only on YHWH’s commitment to reward the generous, but on YHWH adopting the voice of the poor, a critical factor in the vibrancy of early Judaism and Christianity.

In an existential crisis, the author of Psalm 77 is so incapacitated by his troubles that he struggles to speak. He attempts to bring to mind past memories of God’s kindness, but God has changed and is no longer manifest in his life. In an unexpected turn, the psalmist focuses on Israel’s memory of the Sea crossing at the Exodus. How does this meditation help him move from despair to hope?

Interpretations of the binding of Isaac all suffer from a common fault: they fail to consider the ambiguities and unanswered questions of the story. Rather than a simple lesson or theological conclusion, the story leaves us with a deep and abiding perplexity, even anxiety.

Abraham famously receives three divine guests and hosts them lavishly (Genesis 18:1–15). Anthropological fieldwork on the etiquette of hospitality in Mediterranean-type societies allows us to better understand Abraham as host and his divine visitors as guests.

The creation account was divided in the post-exilic period into six days to provide an etiology for Shabbat. This necessitated creating light on day one to distinguish between day and night. In turn, it required assigning significance to the sun and moon on day four beyond their role as sources of light.

Israel’s deity becomes a universal God and the political power behind human affairs. This is just one of seven historical shifts in how the Bible conceives of “theocracy,” divine political power.

YHWH continuously tests Israel in the wilderness with water, manna, and quail. When they fail, YHWH threatens to leave them and then punishes them with fire and plague. J's depiction of YHWH as an emotional deity is already reflected in the stories of Eden and the flood.

Hosea’s depiction of the marital relations with a promiscuous woman, as a metaphor for YHWH’s relationship with Israel, is problematic in ancient and modern terms. The structure of Hosea 2, however, suggests that we have been overlooking the prophet’s message: YHWH rejects and repudiates violence in favor of gentle persuasion and courtship.

In verses 2–31, YHWH is a mythic warrior, with smoke coming from his nostrils, riding a cherub and wielding weapons of lightning and thunder against the enemy. In contrast, in verses 32–51, YHWH strengthens and equips the psalmist to fight his own battles. The combined psalm celebrates YHWH’s complex involvement in human affairs.

Shalhevetyah שַׁלְהֶבֶתְיָה, Song of Songs 8:6, a word appearing only here in the Bible, expresses the power of love by evoking the fiery destructive force of YHWH.

But doesn’t YHWH tell Moses that “no human can see me and live”(Exodus 33:20)?

The Bible describes YHWH as glowing (kabod), and YHWH’s heat as melting mountains, imagery connected with volcano gods, the divine patrons of metalworkers such as the Kenites, who lived in the Negev region. Indeed, the description of Israel’s encounter with YHWH at Sinai portrays a volcanic eruption, with smoke “as if from a furnace” (Exodus 19:18).

God creates life in the heavens and the earth: the first three verses of the Bible explained.

The ancient Near East, including biblical Israel, tried to come to terms with the horrific realities of war by understanding the destruction it wreaks as an act enjoined by divine command, whether of YHWH, Dagan, Ashur, Marduk, Kemosh, Teshub, etc., who also participated in the battles.

In Deuteronomy, “these words,” “this torah,” and “this scroll” refer not to a specific delimited text, but point instead to the total revelation of YHWH to Israel that cannot be limited to one set of words or texts.

Why?

What did the sea see to make it flee? Who caused the mountains to skip like rams?

Tears abound in Lamentations: the poet cries, the people cry, even the city cries, but God does not. In contrast, the gods and goddesses of ancient Near Eastern city laments, cry along with their people. Midrash Eichah Rabbah, seemingly uncomfortable with such a callous depiction of God, rereads Lamentations to include God weeping.

The Torah describes God creating through speech, midrash mores specifically understands creation through the letters of the aleph-bet, and the kabbalists envision it as a series of divine emanations, contractions, and primal pairings. What meaning can we find in these ancient creation myths in light of evolution?

The answer, or lack thereof, teaches us something important about the meaning and limits of divine revelation.

The Torah is clear that God refuses to allow the exodus generation to enter the land as a punishment for their sinful reaction to the spies’ report. Maimonides, however, argues that the punishment was a ruse; God never intended to allow that generation to enter the land.

Who needs the Tabernacle? What is the purpose of sacrifices? Maimonides and Nahmanides have radically different answers to these questions, reflecting a core debate about the nature of Judaism and the purpose of its rituals.

Why does God need an opulent dwelling, with precious metals and jewels, and priests with lush colored outfits? According to Maimonides, God doesn’t; it is we who need it.

A midrash on the phrase venikdash bikhevodi, “and it shall be sanctified by my glory” (Exod 29:43) suggests that God is unusually strict when He punishes those who are close to Him. Rashbam strenuously objected to this popular midrash.

When YHWH sees the evil ways of humanity, he initially decides to wipe them out, but then determines to save Noah’s family. After the flood and Noah’s sacrifice, YHWH promises that He will never again destroy the earth and all life, even though humanity will continue in its evil ways. Thus, the story chronicles not the moral and emotional advancement of humanity but of YHWH.

Some contemporary scholars have argued that Maimonides only meant to claim for the masses that God revealed to Moses the Torah as we have it today, that he himself could not have accepted the Divine authorship of Torah since it is incompatible with his philosophical principles. Yet, a correct understanding of Maimonides yields no such incompatibility, and, indeed, there is to no reason not to take him at his word.

How are we to understand Ezekiel’s bizarre vision of the chariot in its historical context? What makes it theologically so dangerous in the eyes of the rabbis?

The Aleinu prayer begins, עלינו לשבח לאדון הכל, “It is for us to praise the Master of all,” which creates theological tension: If God is presented here as the Master of all, why is it only Jews who are to praise God?

In the 14^th century, R. Nissim of Marseilles suggested that God told Moses only the general command for the Tabernacle and the laws in the Torah, and Moses himself wrote the details and attributed them to God as a way of glorifying God. A close look at many passages in Deuteronomy suggests that this was an early conception of Moses’ role in commanding the mitzvot.

The Priestly Torah discusses the Tabernacle at extraordinary length, emphasizing its portability. Nothing in P ever says this structure was meant to be temporary. P’s Tabernacle was not foreshadowing the Temple, but was a polemic against Haggai and Zechariah’s agitation to build the Second Temple.

A biblical metaphor for God’s relationship with Israel.

Even those who categorically deny that God has form, is composed of matter, is visible, or is subject to the constraints of time and place, cannot seem to relinquish the notion that God speaks precisely as described in the Bible.

The Shema has many interpretations, philosophical, eschatological, national, etc. A historical-critical way to understand the Shema is to read it (and Deuteronomy more broadly) against the backdrop of Assyrian domination, when Assyria touted their god Ashur as the supreme master of the world.

Four Aramaic targumim (ancient translations) have God, and not just cherubim, taking up residence east of the garden. This is based on a slightly different vocalization of the Hebrew text, which is likely a more original reading than our current biblical text (MT).

Philosophically inclined rabbis, such as Maimonides, attempted to understand the mitzvah to love God in Aristotelian terms, imagining God as a non-anthropomorphic abstract being. Shadal argues that this elitist approach twists both Torah and philosophy, and in its place, he offers a moralistic approach that can be achieved by all.

Do we really want God to remember all that we did?

An Explication of Deuteronomy 29:28

The deepest desire of worshipers was to have YHWH in their midst.

Israel had a vassal treaty with Assyria which commanded them to love King Ashurbanipal, a “love" that brought with it legal requirements and penalty clause. Deuteronomy's command that Israel “love God” is best understood in this context, but what about God's love for Israel?

Hoshana Rabbah, the final day of the High Holiday cycle, has a fascinating ritual service, the hoshanot, which includes the making of seven circuits around a Torah scroll and ends with the beating of willow sprigs against the ground. What is the significance of this ritual?

The free-will conundrum of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart—a supplementary approach.

God instructs Moses to tell the Israelites two different names, Ehyeh and YHWH.

YHWH’s appearance to Abraham (Gen 18:1) is interpreted by the midrashic tradition as a vision separate from the arrival of the three guests. However, the plain meaning of the text, which suggests that YHWH is one of the three guests, is supported by an ancient rabbinic “correction” to the text.

The Revelation of the Divine Voice Within 

Using archaeology, anthropology, and biblical Hebrew to explain why ancient Israelites overwhelmingly placed their doorways on the eastern side of their homes and avoided placing them on the west.

The Difference between God’s “Name (שם)” and “Presence (כבוד)”

Three distinct themes in Parashat Vayetzei are intertwined: Jacob’s encounter with God at Bethel, the birth of Jacob’s sons, and Jacob’s departure from Haran. 

Deuteronomy 32 imagines God as a father, an eyelid, an eagle, a nursing mother, and a protective rock. Why so many metaphors?

Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 are often lumped together, as the two great curses, but their careful comparison reveals some fundamental and surprising differences.

YHWH commissions Isaiah to distract the people of Judah so that they continue to sin and then YHWH can punish them harshly. In contrast to other biblical figures such as Abraham and Moses, Isaiah is silent at this injustice.

The two creation stories of Genesis, chapters 1 and 2-3 (P and J) introduce two long narratives which continue throughout much of the Torah. Each is working with a different conception of the creator—a rather human-like God versus a majestic and distant deity.

Situating Sommer’s theology of participatory revelation and halachic fluidity among other Jewish thinkers and writings: Heschel, Maharal, Rosenzweig, and the Zohar. 

Malchuyot is a prayer for the coming of God’s exclusive kingship over Israel. In contrast, the psalm of the shofar (Ps 47) offers an alternative approach, to stop waiting for God’s eschatological intervention and start building rapport with other religious groups, all of whom are the “Am Elohei Avraham,” the retinue of the God of Abraham.