Taken from ch 6 of the book "Thinking About God: Jewish Views" by Rabbi Kari Tuling
Questions to ponder:
1. How have different strands of Jewish tradition viewed the question of God's involvement in our individual and communal lives?
2. Does God act on behalf of the Jewish community?
1. How have different strands of Jewish tradition viewed the question of God's involvement in our individual and communal lives?
2. Does God act on behalf of the Jewish community?
Biblical View: Hannah prays for a son
In biblical times, infertility was seen as a divine decree, God chose winter open or close a woman's womb, and God decided the sex of her child. Furthermore, God might be persuaded to change those decrees. Such is the case in the story of Hannah.
Hannah was barren and longed for a child. Each year her family made a pilgrimage to Shiloh to offer sacrifices. One such day, Elkanah, her husband, offered a sacrifice. He offered many portions to his other wife and her many children, but the Hana he would only give one portion for God had closed her womb. After being taunted by the rest of her family, Hannah rose. In her wretchedness, she prayed to the Lord, weeping all the while. And she made this vow: "O Lord of Hosts, if you will look up on the suffering of Your maidservant and will remember me and not forget Your maidservant, and if You will grant Your maidservant a male child, I will dedicate him to the Lord for all the days of his life; and no razor shell ever touch his head." Eli, the priest, watched her pray. Hannah was praying in her heart, only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard. So Eli thought that she was drunk. He questioned her and Hannah replied, "Oh no, my lord! I am a very unhappy woman. I have drank no wine or other strong drink, but I have been pouring out my heart to the Lord." Eli realized what was happening. "Then go in peace," said Eli, "and may the God of Israel grant you what you have asked of him." Later that night Hannah slept with her husband and God remembered her. Hannah conceived, and at the turn of the year bore a son. She named him Samuel, meaning, "I asked the Lord for him." (1 Samuel 1:4-20)
Providence – the idea that God is guiding action towards the realization of larger goals – plays a key role in this story. Hannah is clearly convinced that if she argues her case with enough passion and skill, she just might change the divine decree. Hannahs prayer is an attempt to renegotiate the boundaries of her life with God. Hannah's God therefore, is a personal God, one who listens and intervenes.
And this God is swayed by her presentation. Thus, feminist biblical scholar Nehama Aschkenasy maintains: "Hannah's faith in the power of her prayer is so strong that it seems God has no choice but to follow suit and comply with her request. She has made a one-sided bargain with God, but she has made God an active partner and bringing her wish to fruition."
In biblical times, infertility was seen as a divine decree, God chose winter open or close a woman's womb, and God decided the sex of her child. Furthermore, God might be persuaded to change those decrees. Such is the case in the story of Hannah.
Hannah was barren and longed for a child. Each year her family made a pilgrimage to Shiloh to offer sacrifices. One such day, Elkanah, her husband, offered a sacrifice. He offered many portions to his other wife and her many children, but the Hana he would only give one portion for God had closed her womb. After being taunted by the rest of her family, Hannah rose. In her wretchedness, she prayed to the Lord, weeping all the while. And she made this vow: "O Lord of Hosts, if you will look up on the suffering of Your maidservant and will remember me and not forget Your maidservant, and if You will grant Your maidservant a male child, I will dedicate him to the Lord for all the days of his life; and no razor shell ever touch his head." Eli, the priest, watched her pray. Hannah was praying in her heart, only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard. So Eli thought that she was drunk. He questioned her and Hannah replied, "Oh no, my lord! I am a very unhappy woman. I have drank no wine or other strong drink, but I have been pouring out my heart to the Lord." Eli realized what was happening. "Then go in peace," said Eli, "and may the God of Israel grant you what you have asked of him." Later that night Hannah slept with her husband and God remembered her. Hannah conceived, and at the turn of the year bore a son. She named him Samuel, meaning, "I asked the Lord for him." (1 Samuel 1:4-20)
Providence – the idea that God is guiding action towards the realization of larger goals – plays a key role in this story. Hannah is clearly convinced that if she argues her case with enough passion and skill, she just might change the divine decree. Hannahs prayer is an attempt to renegotiate the boundaries of her life with God. Hannah's God therefore, is a personal God, one who listens and intervenes.
And this God is swayed by her presentation. Thus, feminist biblical scholar Nehama Aschkenasy maintains: "Hannah's faith in the power of her prayer is so strong that it seems God has no choice but to follow suit and comply with her request. She has made a one-sided bargain with God, but she has made God an active partner and bringing her wish to fruition."
Rabbinical View: Hannah persuades God to act
The ancient rabbis responded to the story of Hannah by filling in details regarding her words to God. The first comment responds to Hannah calling God "Lord of Hosts." The rabbis are careful readers of Hebrew, sensitive to nuances in the language. So Rabbi Eleazer's understanding of the text is based upon an elaborate pun built on a homophone. The two words of the homophone are the verb tzavah, which means "to be willing, to wish," and the adjective tzaveh, which means "swollen." Taken together, and its prayer to the God of Hosts (tzavaot) means that Hannah wishes to have a swollen belly. Hannah thus calls out to the Lord of Tzevaot to acknowledge that God will determine whether or not her wish to become pregnant will be granted.
Secondly, Hannah's prayer comes from the Temple, not from her own home. Praying at her own home was like standing in the doorway and asking for bread, but praying at the Temple at Shiloh was like entering into the presence of a King. Apparently, God pays more attention when the prayer comes from a holy place. And in Jewish law, the poor have a right to make a claim on the rich to be fed. By framing the encounter in these terms, the rabbis communicate that Hannah's cause is just.
Throughout this text, Hannah is objecting to her situation. In the first paragraph, the rabbis have her recognizing that God is responsible for her predicament and makes a wish that it might be fixed. In the second paragraph, they imagine her making her childlessness known, with the understanding that she is merely asking for what is rightfully hers. The Rabbis' analysis of Hannah's narrative indicates that they considered it appropriate for women to pray, based on the biblical story's demonstration that God hears the prayers of women. In their view, God has a responsibility to deliver on the promise to Abraham that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. God is both approachable and subject to persuasion.
The ancient rabbis responded to the story of Hannah by filling in details regarding her words to God. The first comment responds to Hannah calling God "Lord of Hosts." The rabbis are careful readers of Hebrew, sensitive to nuances in the language. So Rabbi Eleazer's understanding of the text is based upon an elaborate pun built on a homophone. The two words of the homophone are the verb tzavah, which means "to be willing, to wish," and the adjective tzaveh, which means "swollen." Taken together, and its prayer to the God of Hosts (tzavaot) means that Hannah wishes to have a swollen belly. Hannah thus calls out to the Lord of Tzevaot to acknowledge that God will determine whether or not her wish to become pregnant will be granted.
Secondly, Hannah's prayer comes from the Temple, not from her own home. Praying at her own home was like standing in the doorway and asking for bread, but praying at the Temple at Shiloh was like entering into the presence of a King. Apparently, God pays more attention when the prayer comes from a holy place. And in Jewish law, the poor have a right to make a claim on the rich to be fed. By framing the encounter in these terms, the rabbis communicate that Hannah's cause is just.
Throughout this text, Hannah is objecting to her situation. In the first paragraph, the rabbis have her recognizing that God is responsible for her predicament and makes a wish that it might be fixed. In the second paragraph, they imagine her making her childlessness known, with the understanding that she is merely asking for what is rightfully hers. The Rabbis' analysis of Hannah's narrative indicates that they considered it appropriate for women to pray, based on the biblical story's demonstration that God hears the prayers of women. In their view, God has a responsibility to deliver on the promise to Abraham that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. God is both approachable and subject to persuasion.
Medieval View: ibn Pakuda argues for predetermination
What is Hannah's petition is granted because God has previously decided her feet – that is to say, her prayer changes nothing? Bachya ibn Pakuda contended that everything in the world has already been determined; the outcome is already known to God.
In his 11th-century masterwork, Duties of the Heart, ibn Pakuda affirmed God's continued decree in the world after God's initial creation of it. He insists that God is omnipotent: God decides all outcomes. The world unfolds the way it does because God decrees it. Notice the idea of perfection here: in ibn Pekuda's estimation, we are living in the best of all possible worlds. However, he suggests that sometimes there is a gap between God's decree – God's decision that's something be so – and its execution. He provides two examples of what might cause such a gap.
In the first case, a man (the primary cause of the action) is drawing water up from a well by turning the wheel (a process he calls the intermediate cause). In the second case, when the man has an animal turn the wheel to draw the water, man again is the primary cause. One could claim that the animal causes the waters movement, but in the final analysis the man is responsible. These two simple scenarios can be used to explain God's relationship to earth. God is ultimately the cause of all things, but for many of these outcomes God makes use of intermediate causes to create the desired outcome. Just as a man might tie an animal to the wheel to draw water, so too might God enact decrees through natural processes. While this process can be disrupted, these disruptions, too, are part of God's plan: "They are performed by men and others only with gods predetermination."
He cites Hannah's psalm as a proof text. After Hannah bears her child, she dedicates the child to temple service and authors a psalm for the occasion. The psalm's theme is that God knows all who are truly righteous and will eventually give them their reward. The psalm contributes to ibn Pakuda's conclusion that God intervenes in the world in order to reward the faithful. God assures the faithful that any disadvantage the experience in the present time will be righted in the end.
What is Hannah's petition is granted because God has previously decided her feet – that is to say, her prayer changes nothing? Bachya ibn Pakuda contended that everything in the world has already been determined; the outcome is already known to God.
In his 11th-century masterwork, Duties of the Heart, ibn Pakuda affirmed God's continued decree in the world after God's initial creation of it. He insists that God is omnipotent: God decides all outcomes. The world unfolds the way it does because God decrees it. Notice the idea of perfection here: in ibn Pekuda's estimation, we are living in the best of all possible worlds. However, he suggests that sometimes there is a gap between God's decree – God's decision that's something be so – and its execution. He provides two examples of what might cause such a gap.
In the first case, a man (the primary cause of the action) is drawing water up from a well by turning the wheel (a process he calls the intermediate cause). In the second case, when the man has an animal turn the wheel to draw the water, man again is the primary cause. One could claim that the animal causes the waters movement, but in the final analysis the man is responsible. These two simple scenarios can be used to explain God's relationship to earth. God is ultimately the cause of all things, but for many of these outcomes God makes use of intermediate causes to create the desired outcome. Just as a man might tie an animal to the wheel to draw water, so too might God enact decrees through natural processes. While this process can be disrupted, these disruptions, too, are part of God's plan: "They are performed by men and others only with gods predetermination."
He cites Hannah's psalm as a proof text. After Hannah bears her child, she dedicates the child to temple service and authors a psalm for the occasion. The psalm's theme is that God knows all who are truly righteous and will eventually give them their reward. The psalm contributes to ibn Pakuda's conclusion that God intervenes in the world in order to reward the faithful. God assures the faithful that any disadvantage the experience in the present time will be righted in the end.
Modern View 1: Heschel's partnership with God
In the view of Abraham Joshua Heschel, God is intimately involved in the affairs of humanity, as a partner in redeeming the world. While in the course of his lifetime he articulated a great many original Jewish ideas, his theological thinking was nonetheless grounded in the Hasidism of his childhood. Hasidism encouraged his followers to empty out their own individual egos in order to do God's will. It also emphasized that the trials and tribulations we encounter in this world are merely illusions: God is the one true reality. Heschel took this view and applied it to the modern world.
According to Heschel, God, the Creator of heaven and earth, gave human beings dominion over the earth. At the same time, Heschel is all too aware of the dangers inherent in such privileges: "This is our predicament: our power may become our undoing." As a refugee from the Holocaust, he knows human brutality all too well. Since God's involvement in the world does not mean that God will save us from our most destructive impulses, Heschel argues that we are called upon to be partners with God in transforming the world. God is not solely responsible for the consequences of human behavior, but neither are we left alone in the universe. God is in search of humanity. God is in search of humans who will make the world what God conceived it to be.
Heschel teaches that we have the power to choose to do good or to do evil – but we have to live with the knowledge that each choice we make can unleash a cascade of unintended results. That is why God gave us the commandments: to help us structure our lives so as to do what is right. Heschel echoes the Hasidic viewpoint that validates the importance of ritual in that he affirmed humanity's partnership with God and drawing down God's goodness. His writing is also imbued with a mystical element, in the sense of seeking contact with the divine.
If, as Heschel says, we are expected to work in partnership with God to enact God's will on earth, then in that sense, too, Hannah's quest to bear child of her own was the best kind of prayer. She sought to partner with God to increase holiness in the world. And, understanding the true nature of God's blessing, she subsequently dedicated her son to the priestly service.
In the view of Abraham Joshua Heschel, God is intimately involved in the affairs of humanity, as a partner in redeeming the world. While in the course of his lifetime he articulated a great many original Jewish ideas, his theological thinking was nonetheless grounded in the Hasidism of his childhood. Hasidism encouraged his followers to empty out their own individual egos in order to do God's will. It also emphasized that the trials and tribulations we encounter in this world are merely illusions: God is the one true reality. Heschel took this view and applied it to the modern world.
According to Heschel, God, the Creator of heaven and earth, gave human beings dominion over the earth. At the same time, Heschel is all too aware of the dangers inherent in such privileges: "This is our predicament: our power may become our undoing." As a refugee from the Holocaust, he knows human brutality all too well. Since God's involvement in the world does not mean that God will save us from our most destructive impulses, Heschel argues that we are called upon to be partners with God in transforming the world. God is not solely responsible for the consequences of human behavior, but neither are we left alone in the universe. God is in search of humanity. God is in search of humans who will make the world what God conceived it to be.
Heschel teaches that we have the power to choose to do good or to do evil – but we have to live with the knowledge that each choice we make can unleash a cascade of unintended results. That is why God gave us the commandments: to help us structure our lives so as to do what is right. Heschel echoes the Hasidic viewpoint that validates the importance of ritual in that he affirmed humanity's partnership with God and drawing down God's goodness. His writing is also imbued with a mystical element, in the sense of seeking contact with the divine.
If, as Heschel says, we are expected to work in partnership with God to enact God's will on earth, then in that sense, too, Hannah's quest to bear child of her own was the best kind of prayer. She sought to partner with God to increase holiness in the world. And, understanding the true nature of God's blessing, she subsequently dedicated her son to the priestly service.
Modern View 2: Kaplan's rejection of supernaturalism
Mordecai Kaplan believed that supernatural concepts of God – even Heschel's non-magical conception of a supernatural God who searches out humanity to help effect God's goodness – were no longer tenable in the modern age. Instead, Kaplan proposed a fundamentally new approach to God. Instead of a "being" acting independently in the world, Kaplan understood God as the transcendent power that we experience in the everyday miracles of our lives, and the best and highest ideals of the human mind and heart. The way to find God wherever we are is to wittingly demonstrate the qualities we identify as Godly. We may find God in the support we extend to someone who is hungry. We may find God when we stand up for those who need it most. In Kaplan's own words: "The best argument for the existence of God is a godlike human life."
Kaplan argues that since God does not intervene in our lives in any supernatural fashion, we must accordingly revise our understanding of what we mean when we say "God." Kaplan concluded that the traditional conceptions of God we're not currently functioning. Therefore, he suggests how the God-concept might be reconstructed, based on his understanding of the human condition.
Think of two poles: on one side of the individual's need for freedom and self-determination, on the other side the group's need for cooperation on a common goal. Kaplan says that is two poles, operating separately but in tandem, have cosmic significance. Kaplan asks whether this tension between freedom and cooperation is existentially real, in the sense that it is part of the fundament of the universe, reflecting an aspect of God. That is to say, our desire to improve ourselves is what is godly in us. In Kaplan's view, there is no external god who intervenes in our lives in any way. God, rather, is reflected in our will to enact our own personal salvation. We do so by making choices in our lives, specifically choosing good over evil. When we enact goodness in our lives, we become living embodiment of God.
In Kaplan's view, Hannahs's prayer would not have changed her situation. Her infertility was a physical, not a metaphysical, problem. There is no supernatural God who could have intervened to respond to her prayer. God, however, would have been present when she willed to do good – to enlist her newborn son into priestly service.
Mordecai Kaplan believed that supernatural concepts of God – even Heschel's non-magical conception of a supernatural God who searches out humanity to help effect God's goodness – were no longer tenable in the modern age. Instead, Kaplan proposed a fundamentally new approach to God. Instead of a "being" acting independently in the world, Kaplan understood God as the transcendent power that we experience in the everyday miracles of our lives, and the best and highest ideals of the human mind and heart. The way to find God wherever we are is to wittingly demonstrate the qualities we identify as Godly. We may find God in the support we extend to someone who is hungry. We may find God when we stand up for those who need it most. In Kaplan's own words: "The best argument for the existence of God is a godlike human life."
Kaplan argues that since God does not intervene in our lives in any supernatural fashion, we must accordingly revise our understanding of what we mean when we say "God." Kaplan concluded that the traditional conceptions of God we're not currently functioning. Therefore, he suggests how the God-concept might be reconstructed, based on his understanding of the human condition.
Think of two poles: on one side of the individual's need for freedom and self-determination, on the other side the group's need for cooperation on a common goal. Kaplan says that is two poles, operating separately but in tandem, have cosmic significance. Kaplan asks whether this tension between freedom and cooperation is existentially real, in the sense that it is part of the fundament of the universe, reflecting an aspect of God. That is to say, our desire to improve ourselves is what is godly in us. In Kaplan's view, there is no external god who intervenes in our lives in any way. God, rather, is reflected in our will to enact our own personal salvation. We do so by making choices in our lives, specifically choosing good over evil. When we enact goodness in our lives, we become living embodiment of God.
In Kaplan's view, Hannahs's prayer would not have changed her situation. Her infertility was a physical, not a metaphysical, problem. There is no supernatural God who could have intervened to respond to her prayer. God, however, would have been present when she willed to do good – to enlist her newborn son into priestly service.
