Religious Achievement

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

The end of faith: the inverse Abraham case for moderns the most natural man 

Abraham is the most influential naturalist in the Jewish tradition. Unlike Maimonides or Spinoza, there is little ascent to finding the divine. It is all about rationalising by natural standards. Instead Abraham’s faith journey finds more with Kohelet and more so with moderns. It is the works of the Rav and Heschel that permeate the life of the religious quester. 

A popular slogan of the day, is “I found God/Jesus”. People are revitalising their faith either from an experience and/or an event. An epiphany inspires rejuvenation in the beyond. In a world of decaying religion, God is reasserted as the saviour from damnation. The breath of nihilism and cynical associations deride the push for any solidarity with divinity. Rather it is through this mindset that many have sought beyond nature. It can’t be just this nor can life have such helpless meaning. There is something. Though ironically, they do not seek God but a community. Finding Jesus or God is so much to do with a religious lifestyle than a theological representation. The leap of faith is a leap of action. A leap into a community. To cherish the beyond in tribal consult. To attend church with other believers and pray alongside them. Some have found God but the way they go about it finds its religious lacing in tribalistic exploits. This is far from the Abrahamic theology. His quest has mute religious inclinations. Even the Aristotelian prime mover had less ritualistic demands. The postmodern age seeks God in others. 

Even Kohelet reckons with the divine will rather than the divine existence. It isn’t about a theological pursuit but religious quest. A hope for the religious community. A hope for religious connection. The nationalistic paradigms are common in the Rav’s work and Rav Kook’s work to R Sacks and R Shagar’s work. The Rav’s Adam II is a direct link to R Sacks’ community of faith. The latter’s communitarianism is brought out of the former’s search for community. R Sacks chalks the loneliness to a time period to which orthodoxy in its infancy had little communitarian cohesion. R Sacks was fortunate to grow up as orthodoxy expanded, now bigger than over. Loneliness is no more on the divine level. Yet R Sacks’ solution of finding God in others does not solve the loneliness problem. The existential dissidence from the divine. Communalism can boggle up the dread of isolation from God but it doesn’t erase that aspect. Comfort among others is a distraction not a solution. Protection only goes so far for struggling believer. Everything is fun and games until tragedy strikes. Until isolation is forced upon. It isn’t the rational connection insofar as it is the theodicy positions that emerge from such sequences. 

The Abrahamic saga is one of personal ambition and isolation. For a person out in the remote lands to figure a new way forward. The outlier with a new direction. It takes passion and conviction. Unyielding trust and unrelenting hope. The pinnacle of faith is the endless quest without certain reciprocity. The midrash plays devils advocate to the akeida. Sacrificing oneself for the sake of a deity’s existence versus sacrificing one’s son for the sake of that deity’s command. Kohelet is the second rate religious quester to Abraham. Yet even his answer is structural and communitarian rather than the purist pursuit of truth. The modern age is akin to a world almost bereft of community. Jewish communities reformed and splintered but the reliance on old tradition kept them in tact. The baal teshuva movement is a return to the fold. It is less to be part of a community of faith but a community of tradition. A community of heritage. A community with meaning. If that includes God great. The idea of communitarianism is most exemplified in the social orthodox movement. To obey the community rather than believe in God. Sidelining the supernatural components for the historical community. The Rav’s Adam II has defeated Adam I. Adam II’s solution to anxiety of existence is to search for a community. The community is comfort. Adam II cannot find the divine. The infinite is beyond is ability thus he seeks others and is humbled. 

Yet it is Adam II’s cultivation that of the natural creation that predicts his own downfall. The Rav accurately projects the biblical explanation. Yet there is a modified version that fits as well. A typology best equipped to the modern or even premodern man. The majestic and humble man is represented by nature and tradition. The Rav occupies with Adam I’s search for dignity and Adam II’s search for community. The Rav transforms Adam I into a rationalist who ponders the cosmos and the mystic who accepts the cosmos. One engages and one accepts. In some twist of irony, both Maimonides and Nahmanides exist under the biblical archetype. No longer does the Arizal’s gilgul account of the two Sages seem so farfetched. Maimonides is Adam’s right paya of rationality and Nahmanides is Adam’s left paya of spirituality. Yet there is a stronger pull which emphasises the difference between revelational man and natural man. In no shock, does revelational man precede natural man even if that logically ought to occur in the inverse. The revelational paradigm of the biblical text prioritises the revelational ethos over the naturalist conception. 

Returning to the text does resemble a dual typology but the cultivation of the divinely endowed Adam and the naturally built Adam is the exact opposite of the Rav’s conceptualisation. God creates man in his image and commands him. The first chapter is of divine majesty. It is not majestic man but majestic God. God implores man to reproduce and spread out. Yet only in chapter 2 is man commanded. Man is born into the world and then is revealed by God. The Rav understands these two as different archetypes but they can also be understood as metaphysical and realistic or existential and practical or even more nuanced soul vs intellect. In this regard, God embedded the biological drive and potentially even ontological pursuit of reproduction. God blesses them and says which means he hardwired it into their being just as for fish. Adam II though represents the pragmatic response by man. God reveals himself to man and commands him to not eat from the tree. Man is a natural being who is commanded, a humble yet despondent character until the divine hurls himself at man. The intuitive piece of man is his soul and his connection to the divine but his rational side remains obtuse in a world disconnected from reality. Abraham is called upon by God. Moses is called upon God. There is never a quest for God. 

Adam II is in line with Abraham and Moses but in the doctrine of revelation appeases Elijah and Kohelet. The persisted commanded-ness is baked into the biblical narrative. God’s first words to Abraham are a command, to Jacob and to Moses. Even if not a direct command, it is an encounter of praise and expectation. The idea of non-commanded aspect is found in midrashim not the text itself. No one finds God. Even Adam II is eventually commanded by God. As Kohelet unabashed argued the purpose of man is to fear God and follow his commandments. Leibowitz echoed this formation as the single dogma of yiddishkeit. If Adam is to be a symbolic representation or a typology, he is of a single entity. He is the archetype of the forefathers down to the contemporary Jew. While a little more emphasis on the detail of providence and lacking prophetic power for the modernist, it does resemble the prophetic experience, especially of those who whose youth was divinely negligible in the cases of Jacob and Moses. Man is a commanded entity. Unlike other divine creations, only man is provided a direct connection to the divine. Only God comes to man. God creates animals twice but does not endow them with prophecy. Man is unique and thus his commanded-ness is but a central facet of his creation. A pragmatic aspect but one dedicated to his self. 

The archetype is a single entity body and soul, essence and existence being and belonging. The first chapter is the scientific or rather instinctive urges of man. He is to reproduce and disperse. Darwinism coins it natural selection, the Torah calls it a directive. This is the soul, the existence of man. This is who man is but what he does that is his essence. He belongs to God. God commands him and he responds. In somewhat of Sartrean motive, Adam I and Adam II are the symbiotic arrangement of one’s fate and one’s destiny. What man is and who he becomes. The loneliness is derived from Adam II. Adam II is imbued with the divine connection, the divine image but that is his hidden talent. God created it and infused it in man but Adam II is unaware. Adam II is natural man built from the earth. A creation of the finite materials surrounding to produce a being of disconnect. Adam II does not find God, God finds him. Adam II is lost with God. God provides him a helpmate to deal with the loneliness. It is with a marriage, with friends, with community that one can live peacefully. Yet community doesn’t automatically mean success nor serenity. Adam’s desired helpmate, Eve, sins and convinces Adam to sin. If not for Eve maybe he wouldn’t have sinned. Adam listened to Eve but he also trusted his mate. He trusted his community. The communal solution can be good and bad. It is a distraction from the loneliness and from the divine will. 

The prophet is the perfect communicator with God because of his isolation. He can hear God clearly as well as remain alienated to deliver God’s will. God reveals to the single lonely individual to chastise the community. To repel the communal damages. The community is a protection from the divine will. Only an outsider can preach the divine will and yet he fails. The single prophet cannot pierce the echo chamber of the community. Prophets were sometimes able to convince a monarch who then was able to reorient society. Whether it be Jehu, Hezekiah or Josiah. With each of their deaths the community fell into disarray and the prophet into despair. Without any sociopolitical assistance the prophet was blackballed and booted. The rabbinic age succeeded where the prophetic age failed due to the internal changes. The Sage was a prince. Ezra was a rabbinic teacher, Simeon the Just was a priest, Rabban Gamaliel was the head of the court and Rebbe compiled the Mishnah. The transition was of scholarly understanding. A time of the study hall rather than the temple grounds. It wasn’t a priest acting on behalf of the people but the people acting themselves. The people themselves taking initiative. The high priest may bequeath God on behalf of the people but the people also have a duty. 

The rabbinic community upends and usurps the prophetic community. The failure of Adam was listening to his community rather than God. He trusted another rather than his own comprehension. Eve’s sin was trusting the false prophet. She was told the command by Adam and trusted an outsider against her helpmate’s advice. Eve is punished for not trusting her husband’s word over a random snake. Adam listened to his wife against God. He was punished for not obeying the divine command. The command always takes precedence. Do not try to tweak nor avoid it. To be holy is to prioritise the word of God. Community can shield positively or negatively. For Eve it was positive and for Adam it was negative. Until he fully recognised Eve and they had children. The community is built on trust. God tells Abraham to trust Sarah she knows. A community can be toxic. The search for a community may be wrongheaded if that community is Sedom as Lot chose. Abraham never settled in a city. He only purchased the cave for his wife. He resided on the outskirts. He never participated. He was against mixing with the Canaanite girls so he remained outside. Jacob lived in Gerar for a little while but his presence was unacceptable and left to live on the outskirts of Beer Sheba. Jacob also temporarily lived with Laban but also did the same. Judah’s story acknowledges the hermit like culture. They were their own island and Judah went to engage with the people.  

The forefathers lived as prophets. They were of their own kin in their own world. Living by their values. Never allowing external values threaten nor compromise their beliefs. Jacob wasn’t a fan of Shechem and Joseph placed them in Goshen. To stay away from the natives. They interacted and even traded but there was a communal difference. The community is of principle and faith. Such is the world of the Adam II. It is not just a community but a community of command. R Sacks opens the opportunity for shared believers but that is not the model of Adam. That is not the model of the forefathers. While it is fair to update the ancient worldview given the industrial adaptation. Jews still hold by it, Haredi Jews living in their own quarters. It is a lifestyle of command. Adam is placed in the garden and God calls out to him. This distinct revelation is the distinguished metric with other animals. Revelation is bound to isolate and alienate. The community of command is one stricken with stubborn principles. The Jew who is hated for his values and beliefs. God places Adam in the garden and then instructs him to act otherwise. To act counter to his wishes. This is the epitome of the Jewish identity. Revelation is to act in accordance with certain principles. Adam is the Jew in the secular world, surrounded by opportunities but commanded to recant this and that opportunity. It is not about questing for faith but living by command in an open arena. The choice is there but the action is not. 

Natural man is but a non-existent creation in the world of the bible. The best modern encapsulation of the Abrahamic ethos was by a second Abraham. Abraham Heschel like his namesake quested for God through natural means. Finding God in wonder and awe. To find the ineffable in the pre-conceptual awareness. His radical amazement and depth theology were characteristics of the profound temporal experience of man. To some degree Heschel inspires the naturalist to find God in nature but under his own words this seems quite implausible. There is a hint of a second when there is such audacity but it is fleeting. It cannot convey the full breath of divinity nor can it apprehend the context of the divine will. In contrast to Buber, it wasn’t that spirituality overshadowed legality but rather that it was a conduit to empowering observance. Inspiring the self through allegorical means. Natural man is but limited in scope from his capability of ever meeting the divine. A speck of divinity senses the infinitude of the ineffable. He cannot be certain but accepts yet then totally forgets. It is similar to the feeling at Neila. The total bliss of divine worship emotionally engaged with the spirit. Yet afterwards that sensation is gone and forgotten. An annual moment of temporal elation. The great quester for divinity admits defeat. Maimonides logically and Heschel experientially could reach the heavens. Only with the divine revelation does clarity open. Only the divine will answers the troubled questions. 

Adam II had an itch about God. God had stitched his image into Adam’s soul but his body, his consciousness was unaware. Until God calls him, Adam thinks but cannot prove. Once Adam is called he processes his itch to the truth. His gut was his soulful intellect screaming for the divine truth. God’s first words are a command. Instruction rather than a directive. Natural man is poised to never reach God. He can think he has found God. He can even attempt to reach him but he won’t. God is beyond. There may be moments of sublime experiences. A logical epiphany or a gut reaction but the stimulated sensation cools off. The prophetic aspect is forgotten but the command is not. The midrashim speak of Abraham’s struggle through the three days uncertain if God actually commanded him to do so. Maybe he heard incorrectly. Abraham pushes through because even if cannot confront God, he trusts he heard the accurate wording. Faith is built on remembering the words while forgetting the encounter. The experience vanishes but the command remains. A tsunami that has mellowed out but its damage left. The mark is embedded even if the event is not. The command is the eternal demand. It is the sole dogmatic hope for the individual. The communitarian asset is to cope with the lonesome struggle yet it is also to elevate the self. To partake in a history of command. Yet like the prophet, if the community is disregarding the divine will escape. Adams mistake was not trusting God and bending to mortality.  

Natural man is a common feeling in the modern age. Highly secular highly anti-religion. Yet the command and the covenant remain. The divine sensation is not present but its residue remains. The tradition has been passed down. Natural man is the ignorant Jew. The child who has yet to learn of tradition. The phrase tinok shenishba is to argue that such a natural rejection is a captured innocent or defiant avenue. It is in adolescence that the Jew changes from natural man to revelational man. Once he is exposed to the command he can no longer return to a divine-less world. Adam’s development coincided with his maturity to accept the command. He chose to not obey God. He chose the naturalistic path. The self-indulgence path and thus was banished from Eden. The revelational path is one consumed with the command fashion. The revelational pull is baked into the educational mould. By one’s early years they are taught the tradition. They are not obligated in the commandments till their teen years but their preparation for the day has already undermined their natural search. The command has been thrusted upon. The child is naaseh venishma. Dad says so you do it. Eat kosher and keep shabbat is the will of the parent on the child. The teenager/adult is kimu vekiblu. The adult decides for himself. He accepts the Torah as his ancestors did as he himself is commanded by God. God does not bestow the spiritual aura onto him but the teenager/adult receives the greatest gift from God, instructions. 

The community of Israel is a tight-knit bunch but it isn’t about collective responsibility but personal accountability. The command is on each person to accept and internalise. The command to Adam, Abraham and Am Yisroel is the command on the self. The modern age may seemingly presuppose a naturalist vision but this a concocted lie. The way of the Jew is the revelational bind. It is not about prophetic inspiration of sublime elevation, but obedience. Responding affirmatively to the divine command.