On James Pyles blog "Morning meditations"- http://mymorningmeditations.com/
the other day, the discussion turned to mysticism. James wrote this:
"Actually, that’s a good question. We’re not prophets certainly but do “ordinary” human beings have the ability to have an “information exchange” with God? I don’t mean a conversation the way we see Abraham or Moses talking with God, but can we make “contact”? Are our prayers in vain or does God hear us? Are our requests to hear from Him in vain or does God, in some manner or fashion, “speak” to us? Can we hear Him?" He asked me to write a blog telling my thought on this subject. So here it is, I rely here on Tim Hegg's teachings.
It is a given that there is a mystical aspect to our faith. A spiritual (something that is not physical) reality. It is something We cannot physically observe, investigate, experience or experiment with. James asked: ..." Are our requests to hear from Him in vain or does God, in some manner or fashion, “speak” to us? Can we hear Him?" Yes He spoke to us in His Word.
When we pray and wait for an answer how are we as humans sure that what we "got" is what God really meant for us to "Get?" Is the divine meaning go beyond what we can understand? Are we to look for a "deeper, hidden meaning" that go over our head with its literal understanding? Christianity made an art of this. For the Christian Church the "fuller sense" is far and better than the "literal sense." But what is the criteria that determines what is and is not a "deeper sense?"
Paul writes, that " The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God" (Rom. 8:16. He describes here the mystical nature of the relationship between the Spirit of God and the spirit of the believer. We cannot base our understanding of this relationship on our experience or any esoteric writing, we can only base it on the Word of God. We have to judge our experience by what the word says, not visa versa, because we believe that the Spirit will lead us according to the very Scriptures He inspired. The Kabbalists say no. They say that one comes to know God best through the mystery of ecstatic, mystical episodes with the divine, therefore, one can find the meaning of the Biblical text through their experience. This is rampart withing Christianity and Judaism alike, "theosophy" in Christianity and "Pardes" in rabbinical writings.
To sum up,I believe, when one "get" an answer to his/her prayers, one has to evaluate the answer against the Scriptures, not against one's life experience.
I admit that mysticism is a slippery slope and if you don't keep yourself grounded in Scripture, it would be easy to get lost. My advice to anyone who has the slightest concerns about mystic writings or teachings is, when in doubt, don't get involved. Ignore mysticism and stick entirely to the traditional teachings.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, 2 Corinthians 12:2 clearly illustrates a mystic experience of Paul's, much of the book of Ezekiel is contains mystical imagery, and of course John's vision in the book of Revelation is entirely mystical. Beyond the Bible, both Christianity and Judaism have long mystical traditions (I believe Derek Leman has blogged on occasion on Christian mysticism), so mystic experiences and reports are not foreign to Scripture, the Bible writers, or Christianity.
By the way, although Kaballah is the most well-known of the Jewish mystic traditions, it certainly isn't the only one. It is thought that some form of Jewish mystic teaching goes all the way back to the Second Temple period. It's possible that Paul and John accessed the same or similar sources as other Jewish mystics in the first century when they were writing (this can be complicated by the fact that not all of the scriptures were written by the people they're attributed to, so many others besides Paul and John were involved).
I don't "practice" mysticism. I think I'd be a little intimidated by the attempt. However, there are certain concepts and images in the Jewish mystic tradition, particularly Chassidic mysticism, that make some things about Jesus easier to understand, including the concept of Jesus dying for our sins. I didn't become interested in Jewish mysticism until I read Paul Philip Levertoff's Love and the Messianic Age, but once I started reading it, I found Levertoff's "mystic" understanding of Jesus completely compelling.
Yes, take mysticism with a grain of salt, or a whole truckload of salt if you must, but for a few of us, it opens doors that would otherwise forever be closed.
I beg to differ here James. I am sure you read FFOZ's "commentary and study guide" on Levertoff's book. They are practically embracing Kabbalistic hermeneutics as valid method for interpreting Scriptures. This is a no-no and it makes people stumble. Look what happened with Chrisianity when they started to interpret scriptures in an alegorical method, they completely jetisoned the Torah.
ReplyDeleteThe disciples did not have Kabbalah and they understood that Jesus died for our sins. You bring examples of mysticism in Scriptures, and as I said this is a given. But not Paul, Ezekiel or John had to go to an esoteric writing to explain their experience. The opposite is true. Paul always quotes the Bible to explain his midrashim.
I am sure you read FFOZ's "commentary and study guide" on Levertoff's book. They are practically embracing Kabbalistic hermeneutics as valid method for interpreting Scriptures. This is a no-no and it makes people stumble.
ReplyDeleteI don't get that sense from the commentary. I think of the Chassidic tales as a lens by which to look at Jesus in order to get another perspective. You can take from them what you will without completely accepting the mystic experience as a "reality", at least one accessible by most of us. I agree if you go to far, you stray away from the foundation, but that's why any endeavour into mysticism should be by someone who is already firmly rooted in the Word and in their faith.
:The disciples did not have Kabbalah and they understood that Jesus died for our sins."
No, they didn't have Kaballah, but it didn't exist back then. There was a mystic tradition and both John's and Paul's writings have mystic elements. Our understanding of Judaism during that point in history is limited, so we don't know what, if any, mystic undercurrents were flowing through what they understood about the death, resurrection, and ascension. We do know, on the other hand, that Paul Levertoff, raised as a Chassidic Jew, specifically found the Gospel of John to be very much alike mystic Chassidic writings.
I hear your warnings that mysticism is a slope made of ice and anyone who does not want to attempt that slope certainly should avoid it. However, to extend my metaphor, I can look at that "icy slope" and see reflections of the Messiah that are not otherwise visible. That doesn't mean I've started climbing that slippery hill and abandoned everything else.
James,
ReplyDeleteThanks again for visiting.
FFOZ did not publish the commentary exclusively for you. They mass produced it in order to sell it to as many people, not all of them as smart and knowledgable as you. I quoted en excerpt in the comment section on your blog.
"See it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according t the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Messiah." (Col. 2:8).
Dan, if Paul didn't have a mystical, ecstatic experience that directly challenged his understanding of the scriptures, he would have died a persecutor of the early Christians. But God had other plans. You can tell me, "You're not Paul," but I don't believe in putting up such a dividing wall between us common believers and a giant of the faith like Paul.
ReplyDeleteIn 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, Paul compares the rock Moses struck in Exodus 17 to Messiah. This can only be called mysticism.
Scripture ought to be the first and last word on correct doctrine. Nobody is disputing that. But as James has already argued, a moderate mysticism that doesn't get too crazy is preferable to a complete rejection. To give just one personal example, if I didn't continue drawing on esoteric allegory and finding novel exegeses for the first chapters of Genesis that surpass the simple meaning, I would find it harder to be a believer, because there's no other way I can reconcile the first chapters of Genesis with what I know is the literal reality. Only mysticism has done it for me.
How can you begin to interpret the book of Revelation without mysticism? The John who wrote that was clearly in touch with that time period's Jewish mysticism.
Also, the book of Hebrews is a mystical homily. Its writer was clearly influenced by the Hellenistic Alexandrian thought of Philo popular at the time. No serious scholar will dispute this.
It doesn't make sense to reject all mysticism when large parts of the scriptures themselves are mystical.
Andrew, thanks for visiting.
ReplyDeletenone of the names you mentioned where teaching contrary to Scriptures, did they? They checked their mystical experiences against what was written. They did not have to rely on Kabbalah to understand their experiences.
As I said in my post, mysticism in our faith is a given, but relying on Kabbalistic interpretation to explain it is dangerous. "Kabbalah seeks to a mystical hermeneutics that all but disregard the clear meaning of the biblical text itself." (Tim Hegg).
I'm with you there, Dan. I do not study Kabbalah or encourage others to do so. Officially, neither does FFOZ.
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget that in even traditional Judaism, Kabbalah was reserved for a very select few, older men (mainly just Rabbis) that had already mastered all of Torah and thus could be trusted with explorations of esoteric meaning. Kabbalah being widely studied in Orthodoxy today is, if I am not mistaken, the influence of Chassidus.