Navigation: This page 'abxn.org/torah.html'
---> Main Page ---> Author. Contact. About Page.

On Torah

"Torah is an expression of
how God designed Creation to work well,
in all its aspects -
a practical, lingual-juridical expression,
as part of God's engaging with the Creation
throughout the centuries,
given into a particular cultural context."

This page is about the language of the Torah.

Some Jewish scholars treat Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy) as the exact words God spoke/wrote, placing emphasis on each word, and often giving words multiple interpretations. Some in the Rabbinic tradition believe it is written in 'special' (almost 'magic'?) language that God intended Jewish scholars to 'play' with in order to come up with 'proper' interpretations - thus fuelling and reinforcing that tradition.

I find I do not like that view (paradigm) about Torah, because it does not sit well with the God who reveals Himself therein, let alone throughout the rest of the Scriptures. God is revealed, not as a puzzle-setter, nor a distant ruler or schoolmaster, but as One Who is engaged with us in love, care and justice/righteousness.

I believe its language is not special in the sense above, implying special rules for its interpretation, but is intended by God as ordinary language, to be interpreted in the ordinary way. Some indicators of this come from within the Torah itself, about the nature of God and how God intended Torah to be taken.

Did not God order every home to have its own copy of Torah and for it to be continually discussed in the home?
Did not God come down and walked the the human beings in the Garden, rather than appearing to them as some awesome spectre?
Did not God let Abraham and others argue with God and even change God's decision?

These do not speak of a God Who wishes to be kept distant, but of God Who loves and wants to engage with the Creation, especially human beings. [Note 1]

If we believe that God created the possibility of language, in all its richness and meaningfulness, and we humans respond, act, function and live within that possibility [Note 2], then good-quality 'ordinary' language is what God intended humanity to employ in understanding Torah and all God's other communications with humankind. (Is this structuralist or poststructuralist? Neither; see that note.)

This is why I believe that:

"Torah is an expression of
how God designed Creation to work well,
in all its aspects -
a practical, lingual-juridical expression,
of part of God's engaging with the Creation,
throughout the centuries,
given into a particular cultural context."

Notes

Note 1. Some might wonder why, then, God seems to harsh and wrathful. If we look carefully, God it wrathful on the people who are supposed to represent God in the world but refuse to do so wholeheartedly. This is discussed under the theme of Representing God.

Note 2. I believe that all creation dwells (exists and functions) within, and by virtue of, an ocean of meaningfulness, which also has the character of law, that this meaningfulness-and-law is diverse yet coherent, comprising multiple aspects, of which the lingual aspect is one, alongside for instance the physical, biotic and faith aspects, that each aspect is necessary and equally important, and that God intends humanity to open up the potential of these diverse aspects for the good of all creation, and that they may be studied and understood gradually, building up bodies of knowledge about them (via methods of science, wisdom, philosophy, practice, etc.). The activity of language is a functioning in the lingual aspect, and that good-quality ordinary language is what God intended, not only among human beings but also to understand the Scriptures (Torah, prophets, etc.). I believe that the Dutch thinker, Dooyeweerd, has opened a door to understanding these aspects philosophically. See

Page on Dooyeweerd's 15 asppcts;
My paper on Dooyeweerd's understanding of meaning: Basden, A. 2019. "Dooyeweerd's understanding of meaning (1) Some main themes". Philosophia Reformata, issue 84(1), 102-129.

Philosophically, this adheres to neither structuralist nor poststructuralist views of language (does it embrace both at a deeper level?). It embraces both 'objective' and 'subjective' and 'intersubjective' views of law.

On Torah

Notes

See Also