Q&A: From Deism to Theism — A Question about the Fifth Notebook
From Deism to Theism — A Question about the Fifth Notebook
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I’m currently reading the fifth notebook and I came across a question. (It’s important to emphasize that I haven’t read the previous four notebooks, and perhaps that’s where my question comes from.)
You argue there (p. 17) that once we have the knowledge that God exists (transcendent, and that He created the world) — and indeed this was proven in the previous notebooks — then the claim that He revealed Himself to us at Sinai is not far-fetched.
But I don’t understand how the fact that such a God exists helps at all with the claim that He revealed Himself to us. After all, the God whose existence we proved (at least according to the first proof, that is, absolute being) by definition cannot reveal Himself to human beings!
I’d be glad if you could explain to me how this is possible. And perhaps the assumption I’m relying on (that the God whose existence we proved cannot reveal Himself) is mistaken (as I said, I haven’t read the four notebooks).
Thanks in advance.
Answer
I don’t understand the question. Where does the assumption come from that He cannot reveal Himself? Maybe you can’t see Him (and even that is an assumption that needs to be established), but why can He not reveal Himself in some other way?
Discussion on Answer
There are several assumptions here, each of which is worth discussing.
1. Absolute perfection does have needs. It is perfect together with its creatures (who complete it. This is the secret of “service for the sake of the Most High’s need.” See also Rabbi Kook’s words in Orot HaKodesh, vol. 2, on perfection and perfecting).
2. His perfection means that He must create a world and reveal Himself to it in order to give the Torah and command. This is not a need; it is an expression of that same perfection. Some formulate it this way (Ramchal): it is the nature of the good to do good. Does that mean that He has a “need” to do good?
3. And how does all this lead to what you claimed, that He cannot reveal Himself? At most, it would mean that He has no need to reveal Himself. Inability itself is a deficiency in perfection. So He did something without needing to. Is there a problem with that?
The revelation that comes after concealment does not stem from a change in the divine will, but from an embedded divine plan that enables a person to build himself, to rise and advance, while feeling that he too is “a partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the work of creation.”
The initial divine hiddenness brings a person to a sense of lack, to longing for a better future, to vigorous activity born of the joy of creation in order to bring the repair closer, and from that to deep joy when God reveals Himself again and we emerge from darkness into light.
When one is in a complete state from the outset, one does not feel the good. It is taken for granted. By contrast, when the good appears after a period of concealment, after we have felt how much we lacked it — then we rejoice in the good in our hands, mature and ready for an “ascent to a higher level.”
. With blessings, S. Tz. Levinger
If God is absolute perfection, then He has no needs. Likewise, He cannot change. Revelation itself presupposes change, since why didn’t He reveal Himself an hour earlier? Something (a will, a need, or the like) changed at a certain point in time and caused the revelation. Revelation points to a kind of deficiency in divine perfection.