PaRDeS and the Quadriga


The Jewish hermeneutical1 system of PaRDeS is fairly well known in Torah-observant circles, but few people know where it came from. Even fewer know that a competing Christian system was developed and formalized at about the same time.

PaRDeS is a method of interpreting Scriptures in which every (or almost every) passage is assumed to have four levels of meaning:

  • Peshat - the plain, literal meaning that the original author intended to convey to his original audience. It still requires some common sense and doesn't mean that everything written is literally true. For example, when David wrote, "YHWH is my shepherd; I shall not want," he didn't mean that God is literally a man guarding a herd of four-footed livestock and that he (David) was a one of those four-footed beasts and would never lack anything at all, especially grass to eat and a stream to drink from. Obviously, David meant for us to understand that God is like a shepherd and that he is like a sheep, and this metaphor is still part of the Peshat (also spelled P'shat) meaning.
  • Remez - the allegorical meaning that is suggested by the text, but not spelled out. For example, Noah's ark and the basket that sheltered Moses on the Nile river are both coated with pitch and protect their contents from both drowning and wickedness. The word for pitch is related to the word for atonement, a spiritual covering. One Remez interpretation of these stories could be that God will provide those who are willing to trust him completely with a spiritual atonement--a Messiah--that will protect them from eternal destruction.
  • Derash - the moral or ethical meaning derived from a passage. In the case of Noah's and Moses' arks, a Derash (also spelled Drash) interpretation would be that we should simply obey God's instructions in troubled times, and everything will work out for the best in the end, even if we can't see how.
  • Sod - the mystical, esoteric meaning of a passage. Sod ascribes deep, hidden meanings to what seem to be straightforward statements. For example, it may employ numerology, "Hebrew word pictures", or "Equidistant Letter Sequencing" to find hidden codes in the Biblical text. Sod often asserts that the real meaning of the text is the opposite of the plain (Peshat) meaning. For example, in the story of the serpent tempting Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, one Peshat interpretation says that God actually wanted Adam and Eve to eat of it, despite telling them not to. He sent the serpent to urge them to rebel so that, through the experience of hardship and resistance to divine will, they could develop into the gods that the Creator planned for them to be all along.
Although the techniques of PaRDeS have a very long history, the hermeneutical system was formalized by Jewish mystics in the twelfth century. It also has some pretty clear problems. The Peshat level is common sense, and the Derash level can be helpful so long as it takes the whole Biblical text into account, but the Remez and Sod levels can get a person into a lot of theological trouble, especially the Sod which often makes a mockery of the Peshat.

The Quadriga, a parallel Christian hermeneutical system, was formalized at the same time that PaRDeS was first becoming popular among Jewish teachers. I suspect that both systems were developed in response to the other. Just as in PaRDeS, the Quadriga subjects every (or almost every) passage to four levels of meaning:
  • Literal - the plain, literal meaning that the original author intended to convey to his original audience. Precisely the same meaning as Peshat.
  • Allegorical - the allegorical meaning that is suggested by the text, but not spelled out. Essentially the same as Remez, but usually with an emphasis on Christological typology.
  • Tropological - the moral or ethical meaning derived from a passage. Precisely the same meaning as Derash.
  • Anagogical - the mystical or eschatological meaning of a passage. This is similar to Sod, but very rarely asserts any meaning that is opposed to the literal, at least not to how the interpreter understands the literal meaning, which can itself be flawed. The Anagogical interpretation deals with the unknowable nature of God, the ultimate fulfillment of prophecy, the spiritual realities that lie behind the physical and apparent universe, the fate of the dead, and existence beyond the Final Judgment.
Both systems are rooted in very ancient--and even common sense--methods of interpreting any religious text. Both systems also have the same basic flaws that make them prone to abuse by false teachers who want to impose their own ideas onto the text. Gnostics, Kabbalists, antinomians, and metanomians all live in the Sod/Anagogical level of interpretation and force the Peshat/Literal to conform to their mystical eisegesis2.

The Bible is an organic text, a collection of works that were spoken and written by and to people in specific cultural, political, and linguistic circumstances. Each work was written for its own purposes and in its own style. Even as they were guided by the Holy Spirit in communicating their messages, each author wrote from his own perspective to people experiencing their own circumstances. It seems extraordinarily misguided to expect every passage of the Bible to fit into the same interpretive framework. Letters must be read as letters, histories as histories, etc., with each work and author adding metaphor, poetry, allusion, and apocalyptic imagery as God guided and his message required.

All systematic theologies eventually fail because the Bible wasn't written as a system. The message of the Bible is cohesive and consistent, but it is not a monolithic text of mystical philosophy.


1 Hermeneutical - "of or pertaining to interpretation; exegetical; explanatory; as, hermeneutic theology, or the art of expounding the Scriptures" (Webster's 1913 English Dictionary)
2 Eisegesis - "the introduction by an interpreter of his own ideas into a text under explication." (-Ologies & -Isms. (2008).)

See Tom Steele's more detailed discussion of PaRDeS at Truth Ignited.

An Anonymous Commentary on Jude

Someone shared this commentary on Jude with me, and I'd like your input, whoever you are.

My impression is that it's not bad, but nothing to write home about either. It seems to be trying too hard to avoid anything especially controversial, even to the point of not really saying anything very profound either. 




Commentary on the Epistle of Jude

by Anonymous

Overview:

Yehudah (Jude), a servant and brother of Yeshua (Jesus) and Yaakov (James), wrote this letter in haste--hence its brevity--warning his readers about the dangers of false teachers and apostates among the believers in Yeshua. His message is a passionate plea to contend earnestly for the faith against anyone who might lead believers astray, perverting the grace of God into licentiousness and denying Yeshua's authority. Jude’s focus on apostasy and judgment draws heavily from the Hebrew scripture and contemporary apocalyptic literature, which he probably intended to evoke thoughts of demonic forces and spiritual warfare.

Jude identified himself as the brother of James, connecting him to the well-known leader of the Jerusalem church, but this obliquely also identifies him as the brother of Yeshua, a subtle reminder to his readers that he isn't speaking from ignorance or speculation. He had intimate knowledge of the Messiah, his life, and his teachings. Though Jude did not directly claim Apostleship on the same level as James and Peter, his message carries an authority by association that would resonate with those familiar with the Apostles and the Hebrew scriptures.

Jude’s epistle warns, encourages, and blesses.

V1-2: The Calling and Blessing of the Saints

Jude addresses his readers as those "called" and "beloved in God the Father," underscoring the divine election and love bestowed upon them. This reflects Paul's sentiments in Romans 1:7, where believers are set apart as saints, not due to their own merits but because of God’s calling. The greeting of mercy, peace, and love echoes the deep Hebrew understanding of God’s covenantal blessings, extending beyond mere feelings to a holistic well-being that results from being in right relationship with God.

V3-4: Contending for the Faith

Jude’s original intention was to write a more general letter about salvation, but the urgency of false teaching compels him to focus on exhorting believers to "contend for the faith" delivered once for all. This statement places a strong emphasis on the immutability of the Gospel. Here, the term “faith” refers not just to belief but to the entire body of teachings and practices passed down from Yeshua and the Apostles (2 Timothy 2:2). The intrusion of "ungodly" individuals perverting grace recalls Paul's warnings in Romans about those who turn liberty into license (Romans 6:1-2). Jude’s emphasis is on preserving the purity of the faith.

V5-7: Historical Warnings of Judgment

Jude offers three historical examples of apostasy and its consequences: the unbelief of those saved from Egypt, the angels who sinned, and Sodom and Gomorrah. The use of these examples is consistent with Jewish midrashic traditions, where Scripture is applied to current situations to warn and instruct the people of God. In each case, Jude points to a form of rebellion—whether it’s disbelief, overstepping divine boundaries, or moral corruption—that resulted in divine judgment. 

  • Israel’s disbelief (Numbers 14) serves as a reminder that being part of the covenant community does not guarantee salvation if one falls into unbelief and disobedience.
  • The angels who abandoned their proper dwelling (Genesis 6:1-4, also referenced in 2 Peter 2:4) symbolize those who reject God's established order. Jude’s emphasis on their punishment highlights the severity of defying divine authority.
  • Sodom and Gomorrah are vivid examples of immorality and a rejection of divine law, illustrating how sexual perversion and moral decay lead to destruction. The connection to “eternal fire” underscores the irreversible consequences of rebellion against God's moral standards.

V8-10: Characteristics of Apostates

Jude identifies the apostates as dreamers who defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. The reference to "dreamers" might suggest individuals who claim special revelations or visions as the basis for their teachings, much like the false prophets criticized by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 23:25-32). Rejecting authority can be seen as a rejection of Yeshua’s lordship and the apostolic teaching, while "blaspheming the glorious ones" refers to disrespecting spiritual beings or divine matters. This is contrasted with the Archangel Michael's restraint when contending with Satan over Moses' body, demonstrating that even angels respect divine authority (Deuteronomy 34:5-6, implied in Jewish tradition).

V11-13: The Way of Cain, Balaam, and Korah

Jude’s use of three Old Testament figures—Cain, Balaam, and Korah—emphasizes the different forms of rebellion seen in the apostates. 

  • Cain symbolizes jealousy and selfishness leading to murder and separation from God (Genesis 4).
  • Balaam represents greed and the perversion of spiritual gifts for personal gain (Numbers 22-24).
  • Korah reflects the rejection of legitimate authority and the desire for self-exaltation (Numbers 16).

Jude’s poetic language (e.g., "waterless clouds" and "wandering stars") paints a vivid picture of these false teachers as empty, unstable, and doomed to destruction. The references to nature—trees without fruit and twice dead—reinforce the idea that these individuals are spiritually barren and devoid of the life that comes from being rooted in Yeshua.

V14-16: Enoch’s Prophecy

Jude cites a prophecy from the apocryphal Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9), a text well-known in Jewish apocalyptic tradition. This highlights the seriousness of the coming judgment, where the Lord will execute justice on the ungodly. Jude’s use of this text is not an endorsement of Enoch as Scripture but serves to emphasize the theme of divine judgment, which was prevalent in Jewish thought. It serves as a solemn reminder that no one, not even angels or mighty men, can escape the consequences of rejecting God’s authority.

V17-19: Apostolic Warnings

Jude reminds the believers of the Apostles' teachings, warning that scoffers will arise in the last days, following their own ungodly passions. This reiterates Paul’s warnings in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and Peter’s in 2 Peter 3:3, both of which foretell the rise of false teachers in the end times. The emphasis on sensuality shows that these individuals live by their desires rather than by the Spirit, causing divisions within the community. Jude highlights the communal responsibility to remain vigilant and united in the face of these challenges.

V20-23: Exhortation to Persevere

Jude calls the believers to build themselves up in their most holy faith and to pray in the Holy Spirit. The emphasis here is on personal and communal growth in faith, ensuring that the love of God sustains them while they await the mercy of Yeshua leading to eternal life. Jude’s encouragement to "snatch others from the fire" shows the balance between judgment and mercy, emphasizing the need for discernment in dealing with those who are wavering or caught in sin (James 5:19-20). Mercy and fear are both necessary in confronting falsehood, reflecting a balanced approach of grace and truth.

V24-25: Doxology

Jude concludes with a beautiful doxology, reminding the believers of God's ability to preserve them and present them blameless before His glory. The focus is on God's sovereignty and power, who alone can sustain the believer through the trials of apostasy. This doxology offers reassurance that despite the dangers of false teachings, God is faithful and will complete His work in those who remain steadfast in the faith.

Genesis 2:1 and the Expanding Universe


Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 2:1 ESV

I read on a website that "finished" in this verse means that the universe absolutely can't be expanding. When the text says that the heavens and the earth were finished, that means.... Well, honestly, I'm not sure how this verse could be interpreted to mean the universe isn't expanding. 

The Hebrew word for "to finish" is kalah (כּלה). It can also mean to accomplish, to cause to end, or to destroy. We know that it can't mean "to cause to an end" or "to destroy" in this context because we can observe that the heavens and the earth still exist.

What's that you say? Observation of the physical universe can help us to correctly interpret the Bible? Why, yes! It most certainly can. 

If observations can definitively show that the universe is expanding, then we can also rule out that kalah could mean the universe is not expanding. Of course, no observations can definitively prove that today. We can only make indirect measurements, calculations, and reasonable hypotheses, unlike the shape and dimensions of the earth, which we can measure and prove definitively.

We don't have to rely only on extra-Biblical evidence to show that kalah doesn't have to mean "finally completed with no possibility of expansion" in Genesis 2:1. Kalah is used more than 200 times in the Old Testament. For example, Genesis 27:30 says that Isaac finished (kalah) blessing Jacob, but just a few verses later in Genesis 28:1, Isaac blessed Jacob again. In 1 Samuel 18:1, David finished (kalah) speaking to Saul, but he spoke to him again in that same chapter. Clearly the word doesn't mean "finally completed with no possibility of expansion" in either of these instances. In fact, it almost never means "finished" with that kind of static finality.

The heavens are constantly moving. The earth is constantly changing. "Finished" in Genesis 2:1 only refers to God's work of creation, not to any ongoing processes that might have been set in motion during that creation.

Genesis 1 and the Shape of the Earth


I recently saw an argument that since the earth was created before the sun in Genesis 1, the earth must be flat. How does someone who thinks like that even have meaningful conversations with other people? It's like saying, "My son was born before my daughter, therefore my daughter is a tree." The one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

Maybe if they had argued that Genesis 1:2 says "the earth was without form", therefore the earth can't be a sphere, it would at least have some kind of internal logic. However, just like all human language, no matter how technical and precise, the Hebrew of Genesis 1 uses idioms and figurative language, which is then translated into another language (e.g. English) that uses idioms and figurative language.

The earth was without form (תהו) and void (בהו), and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:2 ESV

"Without form" is the Hebrew word tohu, which can mean formless, but can also mean unorganized, pointless, or useless. It rarely refers to anything's actual shape. "Void" is the word bohu (notice the rhyming?), which means empty, pretty much exactly what void would mean in the 17th century English of the KJV. It's not a technical term referring to the vacuum of space, but empty like the Sahara desert is void of trees.

The picture that Genesis 1 draws of the earth immediately after its creation is of a muddy place without clear delineation between land and sea, dark, useless, and lifeless. You, the reader, have to read into the text your own idea of how the universe works before you can find even a hint of the earth's shape.

Musk, Grok, and God

This morning, Elon Musk posted a short poem about one positive aspect of religion, in general:


 

Curious to see how Grok would respond to a question about the subjective nature of religion that attempts to connect with an objective God, I asked it:

"If there is a real creator god, does it make sense for individual people to define him in whatever way feels right to them?"

Grok's reply is interesting, but like all human-programmed AIs, it ultimately fails to give the logically inevitable answer because it is trying to be inoffensive:

The question of how individuals define or conceptualize a creator god touches on deep philosophical, theological, and psychological dimensions. Here's a breakdown of considerations: 1. **Subjectivity of Experience**: Human experience is inherently subjective. People's understanding of a creator god can be influenced by their culture, personal experiences, emotional needs, and intellectual frameworks. Given this, it might be argued that defining god in a way that feels right could be a natural and perhaps necessary process for individuals to connect with the divine in a meaningful way. 2. **Religious and Philosophical Traditions**: Many religious traditions offer specific doctrines about the nature of god, which might not align with personal definitions. However, within these traditions, there's often room for interpretation and personal relationship with the divine. Mystics, for instance, often describe experiences of god that transcend doctrinal definitions. 3. **Theological Perspectives**: - **Apophasis (Negative Theology)**: Some theological traditions suggest that god is beyond human comprehension, and thus, any definition we impose is inherently limited. From this viewpoint, personal definitions might be seen as valid attempts to grasp the ineffable. - **Panentheism and Pantheism**: These perspectives might argue that god is in everything or that everything is part of god, which could support a more flexible, personal definition. 4. **Psychological Impact**: Defining god in a way that resonates personally can have profound psychological benefits, providing comfort, purpose, and a moral framework. This personal connection might be more about fulfilling existential needs rather than achieving an objective truth. 5. **Philosophical Considerations**: - **Pluralism**: The idea that there might be multiple valid ways to understand or experience the divine suggests that individual definitions could coexist without one necessarily being more correct than another. - **Pragmatism**: If a belief in a certain kind of god helps an individual live a better, more ethical, or happier life, then from a pragmatic standpoint, that definition has value. 6. **Critiques and Challenges**: - **Relativism**: If everyone defines god differently, does this lead to a form of relativism where the concept of god loses any objective meaning or impact? - **Conflict**: Different personal definitions can lead to conflicts, especially when these definitions are seen as universally applicable or when they intersect with societal laws and norms. 7. **Ultimate Reality**: If there is a creator god, this entity might exist independently of human perception. Thus, while personal definitions might be psychologically or socially useful, they might not reflect the actual nature of this being, if such a being exists. In conclusion, while it might make sense from various human-centric perspectives for individuals to define a creator god in ways that resonate with them personally, this approach also raises questions about the nature of truth, the essence of divinity, and the implications for interfaith or philosophical dialogue. Whether or not this approach aligns with any objective reality of a creator god remains a matter of belief, speculation, or faith.

We have a genetic drive to worship a deity just as much as we have a genetic drive to procreate. The spiritual drive is just harder to identify and satisfy because it's not connected to a specific physical organ. People tend to satisfy both drives in the easiest--and therefore usually the worst--ways. If there is a real Creator God, he can't be whatever we want him to be. His existence and character doesn't depend on us. He is what he is, and the best connection we can have with him must conform to his design, not our desire.

Torah People on a Mission for Yeshua


Hebrew Roots, Messianic, Torah-Pursuant...whatever label you want to slap on them, these ministries are doing exactly what so many people say that Torah people won't do. I haven't vetted all of them, so before you get involved, you'll need to do your own research.

The Binji Uganda, https://thebinji.com/mission/

Messianic Ministry & Mission Africa, https://ministryandmissionafrica.org/

Vintage Skills International, https://vintageskillsinternational.com/about-us/

Shekinah House, Launceston, Tasmania, https://www.facebook.com/ShekinahHouse777/

Kaleb House, women's and children's shelter, https://www.kalebhouse.org/

Grindstone Ministries, disaster relief and construction services, https://grindstoneministries.com/

Kehilat Bethlehem, India, https://kehilatbethlechem.com/

African Messianic Outreach, https://africanmessianicoutreach.org/

Beth Yeshua International, https://www.bethyeshuainternational.org/missions/

Chiasm on God's Faithfulness to the Hebrews in Exodus 2-4

This chiasm was, in part, illustrated in a series of videos by Rabbi Fohrman at Aleph Beta, called "Why Did God Try to Kill Moses"? I don't entirely agree with Rabbi Fohrman's breakout of the chiasm, though. I think a couple of his points are weak and that the chiasm is more detailed in the center than he talked about. Maybe he's aware of that and just simplified it for the video.


One thing we can learn from this is that, like the burning bush that was not consumed by the fire, no matter what afflictions the Hebrews suffer, God will preserve them through it for the sake of his promises to the Patriarchs.