The Theology of Abraham Joshua Heschel – God in Search of Man

By: Yehudah D. Zirkind

Introductory Remarks

Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907-1972) was a prominent Jewish theologian

and philosopher of the twentieth century. His writings have contributed
greatly to the spiritual and religious revival of Judaism in contemporary
times.

In the following pages we will attempt to explore some 1 of the seminal ideas
contained in Heschel's work, God in Search of Man: a Philosophy of
Judaism,2 Heschel’s most thorough and comprehensive treatment of the
philosophy of Judaism.3

Before we proceed, a note regarding methodology is in order. Heschel's

writing does not easily lend itself to systematic analysis. It does not proceed
in a clear, linear, and logical fashion; rather, it is highly mystical, intuitive,
and poetic. Instead of presenting a consistent argument, Heschel often
employs a kaleidoscopic approach – each time exploring a theme from a
different angle, thereby yielding a collage of perspectives and an eclectic
rainbow of insights. Given that the logical structure in Heschel's writing is
not easily perceptible, it is difficult to present Heschel's ideas as a systematic
and conceptual whole. Therefore, instead of offering a comprehensive
analysis, we will focus on some of the main insights and central themes that
lie at the core of Heschel's thought.

I. Setting the Agenda – Philosophy of Religion4

1
This paper does not attempt to provide a comprehensive review and detailed analysis of Heschel’s work
God in Search of Man. We will merely focus on some central themes while, by necessity, omitting many
others.

2
Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism, (New York: Farrar, Straus
and Cudahy, 1955). Hereafter cited as Search.

3
Heschel also dealt with many of the ideas contained in Search in a companion volume titled Man Is Not
Alone, (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1951). Hereafter cited as Not Alone.
4
The following is based on Search, chapter 1, and the beginning of chapter 2, pp. 3-25.

1
Heschel begins his work with an analysis of the “Philosophy of Religion.”
When dealing with this subject, it is necessary to define the subject matter as
well as clearly delineate the objectives in undertaking such a study.

A philosophy of religion can be defined in several ways, resulting in a

variety of possible goals and objectives. Heschel discusses three basic
definitions of a philosophy of religion: a) an attempt to achieve a radical
self-understanding of religion in terms of its own spirit and teachings b) a
critical evaluation of religion from the point of view of philosophy, and c) a
critical evaluation of philosophy from the point of view of religion.5

The uniqueness of Heschel's contribution to the philosophy of religion in

general and Jewish theology in particular, consists, amongst many other
things, of: a) his work in the field of , what he terms, “depth-theology” b) his
attempt to replace the Western mode of thought with the biblical mode of
thought as exemplified by the biblical prophets. As an integral part of this
endeavor, Heschel distinguishes between the philosophical mode of thought
and the biblical-religious mode of thought and demonstrates the inadequacy
of the former and the supremacy of the latter.

Depth-Theology

In contemporary times, Heschel observes, we are witnessing a general

decline of religion, “an eclipse of religion.” It is customary to blame secular
science and anti-religious philosophy for the downfall of religion. As a
result, the main efforts of religious apologists are directed at reconciling the
claims of religion with the claims of science and philosophy, thereby
demonstrating that science and philosophy have not succeeded in refuting
religion.

According to Heschel, the main cause for the decline of religion is not that it
has been refuted by science, but that it has become meaningless and
irrelevant.

5
Heschel's main achievement lies in categories one and three – as opposed to the second category – and it
is regarding these areas that we shall now focus our attention on.

2
 “Religion is an answer to man's ultimate questions. The moment we become
oblivious to ultimate questions, religion becomes irrelevant, and its crisis sets
in.”6

Heschel believes that religion itself is to blame for its own defeat. By
placing its entire emphasis on dogma and creed, religion provides man 7 with
catechisms and doctrines, but these formulas alone do not have the power to
illuminate the soul. Religious insight must come in response to man's
struggle with the ultimate questions of existence in order for them to be
vital. Otherwise, religious pronouncements are no more than dull and vapid
slogans, like an answer to a forgotten question, and akin to a footnote
severed from the text. The main problem, therefore, is not that religious
answers have been refuted and superseded by philosophy and science, but
that the questions that give rise to religious insight have been forgotten.

To remedy this problem, we have to uncover the questions to which religion

is an answer. This task belongs to the realm of depth-theology. In contrast to
normative theology, which deals with religious dogma, doctrine, and creed –
the contents of belief; depth-theology deals with the substance of faith – the
act of faith as it originates in the soul. We must consider the why of faith
rather than the what of belief.

Normative theology deals with the fruits of faith, namely, the insights of
faith as they have been translated into concepts and formulated into a
specific creed. Depth-theology deals with the roots of faith, namely, with the
total situation of man that gives birth to religious insight and sparks the
genesis of faith.

Heschel faults medieval Jewish philosophers for focusing on religious

dogma in isolation from the totality of the religious experience. As a result,
their works do not remedy the contemporary religious crisis. For when
religion is reduced to mere concepts, it runs dry and turns hollow. Only
when there is a supreme religious concern that comes alive when man is
confronted with the ultimate issues on which he stakes his entire existence,
can he turn to religion to provide the ultimate answer.

6
Search, p. 3.
7
Here and throughout the paper “man” refers to humankind as a whole and includes women as well.
Likewise, all references to males include females and were employed in order to avoid the cumbersome
task of always finding a gender-neutral term, needless repetition, and/or constantly alternating between the
masculine and feminine.

3
According to Heschel, before theology can begin to consider the dogmatic
content of faith, it must first consider the very phenomenon of faith: the pre-
theological experience of the ineffable which opens man to theological
reflection.

Thus, Heschel sets for himself the task of espousing a “depth-theology,” a

theology which examines and explores “the antecedents of faith” – the
attitudes, insights, and emotions, that spark the genesis of faith. Heschel is
more concerned with the phenomenology of faith than with the content of
dogmatic theology.

“Our first goal, then, is not to evolve the philosophy of a doctrine, interpretations
of a dogma, but the philosophy of concrete events, acts, insights, of that which is
part of the pious man. For religion is more than a creed or an ideology and cannot
be understood when detached from acts and events. It comes to light in moments
in which one’s soul is shaken with unmitigated concern about the meaning of all
meaning, about one’s ultimate commitment which is integrated with one's very
existence… Thus the issue which must be discussed first is not belief, ritual or the
religious experience, but the source of all these phenomena: the total situation of
man; not how he experiences the supernatural, but why he experiences it and
accepts it.”8

The Relationship between Philosophy and Religion

Any discussion about the philosophy of religion involves an encounter

between the two. Not only does such a discussion involve a constant clash
between two sets of ideas, it entails a head-on conflict between two radically
different modes of thinking: the way of thinking represented by Western
philosophy and the way of thinking represented by religious thinking and
biblical theology. Philosophy and religion do not just provide different
answers; they ask different questions and have radically different
orientations. What is meaningful to philosophy may be meaningless to
religion and visa-versa.

Believing that the ideas of philosophy pose a threat to the teachings of

religion, religious apologists have often sought to blur the lines between the
two by suggesting that the truths of revelation are synonymous with the
insights derived from reason.9

8
Search, p. 7; cf. Not Alone, pp. 55-56.
9
A notable example is Philo of Alexandria who tried to synthesize Jewish thought with Hellenistic thought.

4
But according to Heschel:

“Such reconciliation is not a solution but a dissolution in which religion is bound

to fade away. If science and religion are intrinsically identical, one of them must
be superfluous. In such reconciliation, religion is little more than bad science and
naïve morality. Its depth gone, its majesty forgotten, its values become
questionable. Its only justification is pedagogical, as a shortcut to philosophy, as a
philosophy for the masses.”10 The consequence of such an attempt is that “what
begins as a Philosophy of Religion ends as a Religion of Philosophy.”11

By attempting to equate religion with philosophy, we end up denigrating the

dignity of religion and compromise its integrity. Translating religious
insights into philosophical categories is like translating the idioms of one’s
native language into a foreign tongue. The authentic original is replaced by
an artificial replica.

Heschel advocates that instead of attempting to validate religion by equating

it with philosophical categories, we need to revitalize the authentic spirit of
religion and demonstrate the unique role of religion in dealing with man's
ultimate questions.

II. The Antecedents of Faith12

The task of depth-theology is to probe the depths of the souls of the pious
and to uncover the roots of faith. But what transpires in the soul of man
during the germination of faith? What are the attitudes and insights that
provide the necessary climate for the sprouting of faith? How does man
sensitize his soul to the ultimate questions that lead him to an intuitive
certainty of the reality of God?

Heschel maps out five categories of existence to which man must sensitize
himself in order to bring about an awareness of the ineffable, which in turn
leads us to an intuitive awareness of the divine presence. These five
dimensions are: the sublime (or grandeur), wonder (or radical amazement),
mystery, awe (or reverence), and glory. These five categories constitute both
the antecedents of faith – whereby one can attain faith – and the constitutive
elements of faith itself.
10
Search, p. 13.
11
Search, p. 14.
12
The following is based on Search, chapters 3-11, pp. 33-124.

5
The Sublime

Heschel perceives the contemporary spiritual crisis in man’s single-minded

focus on the attainment of power and the satisfaction of needs. Instead of
concentrating on the attainment of power and exploiting the resources of
nature to satisfy its desires and needs, society must learn to appreciate and
cherish the grandeur, sublimity, and beauty of nature.

“There are three aspects of nature that command our attention: its power, its
beauty, and its grandeur. Accordingly, there are three ways in which we may
relate ourselves to the world – we may exploit it, we may enjoy it, we may accept
it in awe.” 13

When faced with the grandeur and beauty of nature, man becomes
overwhelmed by the immense preciousness of being. He becomes aware of
the realm of the ineffable; that which he sees but cannot express, that which
totally defies his ability of articulation and description.

“The sublime is that which we see and are unable to convey. It is the silent
allusion of things to a meaning greater than themselves. It is that which all things
ultimately stand for; ‘the inveterate silence of the world that remains immune to
curiosity and inquisitiveness like distant foliage in the dusk.’ It is that which our
words, our forms, our categories can never reach. This is why the sense of the
sublime must be regarded as the root of man's creative activities in art, thought,
and noble living. Just as no flora has ever fully displayed the hidden vitality of the
earth, so has no work of art, no system of philosophy, no theory of science, ever
brought to expression the depth of meaning, the sublimity of reality in the sight of
which the souls of saints, artists, and philosophers live.”14

The sublime however is not the ultimate. The sublime merely serves as a
allusion to God:

“To the biblical man the sublime is but a form in which the presence of God
strikes forth…the grandeur of nature is only the beginning, beyond the grandeur is
God.”15

By becoming sensitive to the sublime in nature, man finds a way in this

world that leads to the awareness of God Who is beyond this world.

13
Search, pp. 33-34.
14
Search, p. 39.
15
Search, pp. 95-97.

6
 “Faced with the mind-surpassing grandeur of the universe, we cannot but admit
that there is a meaning which is greater than man.”16

Wonder

The grandeur and sublime in nature, evokes wonder and radical amazement
in the soul of man.

The essence of wonder or radical amazement is the ability to be surprised at

something and marvel at its existence. In order to cultivate the attitude of
wonder, man must learn never to take things for granted. Otherwise, he can
become callous and oblivious to the great wonder and marvel of existence.
Heschel laments that in contemporary times man has lost the capacity for
wonder since everything has been reduced to the ordinary. Nothing surprises
him, there is an explanation for everything, and even when his powers of
reasoning fail him, he believes that in due time the enigma will be solved.

Instead of trying to demystify everything through rational inquiry, man

ought to sensitize himself to the elements of wonder and surprise in nature.

“The profound and perpetual awareness of the wonder of being has become a part
of the religious consciousness of the Jew. Three times a day we pray‘We thank
Thee ... For Thy miracles which are daily with us, For Thy continual marvels…’
In the evening liturgy we recite the words of Job (9:10)‘Who does great things
past finding out, Marvelous things without number’.

A scientific theory, once it is announced and accepted, does not have to be

repeated twice a day. The insights of wonder must be constantly kept alive. Since
there is a need for daily wonder, there is a need for daily worship.

The sense for the ‘miracles which are daily with us,’ the sense for the ‘continual
marvels,’ is the source of prayer. There is no worship, no music, no love, if we
take for granted the blessings or defeats of living. No routine of the social,
physical, or physiological order must dull our sense of surprise at the fact that
there is a social, a physical, or a physiological order. We are trained in
maintaining our sense of wonder by uttering a prayer before the enjoyment of
food. Each time we are about to drink a glass of water, we remind ourselves of the
eternal mystery of creation, ‘Blessed be Thou . . . by Whose word all things come
into being.’ A trivial act and a reference to the supreme miracle. Wishing to eat
bread or fruit, to enjoy a pleasant fragrance or a cup of wine; on tasting fruit in
season for the first time; on seeing a rainbow, or the ocean; on noticing trees when
they blossom; on meeting a sage in Torah or in secular learning; on hearing good
16
Search, p. 105.

7
 or bad tidings–we are taught to invoke His great name and our awareness of Him.
Even on performing a physiological function we say ‘Blessed be Thou . . . who
healest all flesh and doest wonders.’”17

Mystery

Another aspect of existence that man must focus his attention on is the
element of mystery which envelopes all of existence. The entire creation is a
great enigma that cannot be solved. Any attempt, no matter how strenuous,
to solve the riddle of existence will ultimately prove futile. As King
Solomon says in the book of Ecclesiastes “I said I will be wise, but it was
far from me. That which is, is far off and deep, exceedingly deep. Who can
find it out (7:23-24).”

The existence of the world is a profound mystery. The natural order of

things, the world of the known, is really a world unknown. The totality of
existence holds a great secret.

The sense of mystery reaches its peak when dealing with the mystery of
God. God dwells in deep darkness. God's ways are mysterious,
unfathomable, and incomprehensible to the human mind.

The awareness of the mystery of God finds its expression in Judaism with
regard to God’s ineffable name, signaling the impossibility of knowing God
even by His name. Only once a year on the Day of Atonement was the
ineffable name uttered by the high priest in Jerusalem.

According to Heschel, the horizons that are unknowable to the human mind
is a void that religion fills with meaning.

“The sense of the ineffable, the awareness of the grandeur and mystery of living,
is shared by all men, and it is in the depth of such awareness that acts and
thoughts of religion are full of meaning. The ideas of religion are an answer, when
the mystery is a problem.”18

However, while God is a mystery, the mystery is not God. God is a revealer
of mysteries, and what is mysterious to us is eternally meaningful to God,
for God's wisdom surpasses all mysteries. Beyond the mystery there is

17
Search, pp. 48-49.
18
Search, p. 65.

8
meaning, and mystery “is not a synonym for the unknown but rather a name
for a meaning which stands in relation to God.”19

Awe

Awe (or reverence) is the feeling that is evoked in the soul of man in
response to the great mystery. Sensing the mystery of the universe, he is
filled with awe and overcome by a deep sense of humility. Together, wonder
and awe are a joint response to the grandeur and mystery of existence.

Faced with the grandeur and mystery of existence, man is struck with
reverence towards what creation stands for:

“Awe is the awareness of transcendent meaning, of a spiritual suggestiveness of

reality, an allusiveness to transcendent meaning…we are struck with an awareness
of the immense preciousness of being, a preciousness which is not an object of
analysis but a cause of wonder…an intuition for a meaning that is beyond the
mystery, an awareness of the transcendent worth of the universe.”20

“Reverence is one of man's answers to the presence of the mystery. This is why,
in contradistinction to other emotions, it does not rush to be spoken. When we
stand in awe, our lips do not demand speech, knowing that if we spoke, we would
deprave ourselves. In such moments talk is an abomination. All we want is to
pause, to be still, that the moment may last. It is like listening to great music; how
it reaps the yield from the fertile soil of stillness; we are swept by it without being
able to appraise it. The meaning of the things we revere is overwhelming and
beyond the grasp of our understanding. We possess no categories for it and would
distort it if we tried to appraise it by our standard of values; it essentially
surpasses our criteria.”21

Glory

The final dimension of existence which heightens our spiritual and religious
sensibilities is the glory of God and the awareness of His presence.

“All existence is embraced by a spiritual presence… There is a holiness that

hovers over all things…as if all external life were embraced by an inner life.”22
19
Search, p. 74.
20
Search, p. 106; cf. Not Alone, p.22.
21
Not Alone, p. 26.
22
Not Alone, p. 64.

9
 “The outwardness of the world communicates something of the indwelling
greatness of God, which is radiant and conveys itself without words…it is a living
presence or the effulgence of a living presence.”23
“Mainly the glory manifests itself as a power overwhelming the world.
Demanding homage, it is a power that descends to guide, to remind. The glory
reflects abundance of good and truth, the power that acts in nature and history.”24

The Challenge and the Response

When man faces the grandeur, mystery, and glory, when he is overwhelmed
with awe and amazement, he lifts his eyes to heaven and asks in amazement
“Who created thee.” In response to this burning question borne in
amazement, man comes upon a flash of insight in which he obtains an
intuitive certainty of the reality of God. At this moment the genesis of faith
occurs. In sensing the spiritual dimension of all being, he becomes aware of
the absolute reality of the divine.25

However, attaining the insights of faith and the intuitive certainty of God’s
realness is insufficient. Faced with the realization of transcendent meaning,
man is challenged. He feels that something is being asked of him. He feels
that he has an obligation and responsibility to live in a way that is
compatible with the grandeur and mystery of existence. Thus, beyond the
insights of faith comes the conviction that faith alone is not enough. Man
must live a life of piety that is compatible with a life of faith.

The sense of wonder, awe, and reverence unlocks a sense of indebtedness,

obligation, and duty. Man feels that all he owns he owes, and that “we carry
a load of marvel, wishing to exchange it for the simplicity of knowing what
to live for.”26

“The beginning of faith is … not a feeling for the mystery of living or a sense of
awe, wonder, and amazement. The root of religion is the question what to do with

23
Search, p. 83.
24
Search, p. 82.
25
One of the difficulties with Heschel's thesis is that he equates the awareness of the ineffable with an
awareness of God. While it is true that for the religious person God is the ultimate transcendent meaning,
others may argue that the existence of ultimate meaning is not synonymous with the theistic view of God.
26
Search, pp. 112-113.

10
 awe, wonder, and amazement. Religion begins with a consciousness that
something is asked of us.”27

Sensing the grandeur of the universe, man is overcome with an eagerness to

exalt and to praise the master of the world. Overwhelmed with awe and
reverence, he feels a need to adore, an urge to worship.28

III. The Living God

The God of the Philosophers and the God of the Prophets 29

Heschel remarks that in discussing the religious conception of God, it is

crucial to examine the mode of discourse in which reflection about God
occurs. Philosophy and religion are two radically different modes of
discourse. Hence, their notions of God are vastly different.

To the philosopher the question of God belongs to realm of science and

metaphysics. Science is concerned with discovering an ultimate cause, an
intelligent being that is responsible for the laws of nature. Philosophy is
concerned with the idea of the ultimate and absolute. Therefore, for the
scientist and philosopher, God is the Supreme Cause and Supreme Being,
but at the same time, this entity is entirely devoid of life.

For the religious person, the notion of God as a Primary Cause devoid of life
and freedom is completely meaningless and absurd.

“To say that our search for God is a search for the idea of the absolute is to
eliminate the problem which we are trying to explore. A first cause or an idea of
the absolute – devoid of life, devoid of freedom – is an issue for science or
metaphysics rather than a concern of the soul or the conscience. An affirmation of
such a cause or such an idea would be an answer unrelated to our question. The
living soul is not concerned with a dead cause but with a living God.

Our goal is to ascertain the existence of a Being to whom we may confess our
sins, of a God who loves, of a God who is not above concern with our inquiry and
search for Him; a father, not an absolute.”30
27
Search, p. 162.
28
See Search, p.41.

29
The following is based on Search, pp. 108-109, 125-127; Not Alone, pp. 51-54.

30
Search, p. 125.

11
Thus, the difference between the God of the philosophers and the God of the
prophets is not the result of a dispute between reason and religion. The
difference is rooted in two different orientations to reality.

Heschel illustrates that this issue is commonly perceived as a conflict

between science and religion. The attempt by religious philosophers to
provide a philosophical and rational basis for their religious conceptions of
God, is an approach Heschel regards as misguided as it does not tackle the
main issue.

The way to validate religion is not by resorting to philosophical categories,

for by turning to philosophical categories to validate religion we are looking
for definitions that do not conform to our sensibilities. We think that we are
strengthening our faith by enlisting the support of reason, but in truth when
faith is reduced to reason it losses all of its vitality. The way to faith in God
is not via the speculative proofs of reason but by transcending rational
formulations and rekindling the insights of faith. According to Heschel, the
contemporary crisis of faith is not a result of intellectual sophistication but
rather due to a spiritual desensitization.

The Divine Pathos 31

Perhaps the most revolutionary and radical concept in Heschel's theology is

the notion of the divine pathos, namely, God's feelings and subjectivity. 32
This concept is nothing short of a revolution in theology and stands at the
very core of Heschel's Weltanschauung. This notion is one of Heschel’s
most unique and innovative contributions to the field of Jewish philosophy
and theology.33

31
The following is based on Search, pp. 412-413; Not Alone, pp. 128-129, 142-145, 241-245; The
Prophets, pp. 215-220, 223-231, 483-488; Theology of Ancient Judaism, Volume I, pp. 65-92, 153-162.

32
Heschel first developed this idea in his doctoral dissertation on prophetic consciousness (Die Prophetie.
Krakow, 1936), later revised and expanded in English and published under the title The Prophets,
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962).
33
Some have severely criticized Heschel's notion of the divine pathos on several accounts. One of the
harshest attacks comes from Dr. Eliezer Berkovitz who accuses Heschel of importing this notion from
Christian theology! See Eliezer Berkovitz, Major Themes in Modern Philosophies of Judaism, (Ktav,
1974), pp. 192-224. For a Christian perspective see Edmond La B. Cherbonnier, “Divine Pathos and
Prophetic Sympathy,” http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/divine.htm.

12
This is how Heschel describes the divine pathos:
“To the prophet, God does not reveal himself in an abstract absoluteness, but in a
specific and unique way––in a personal and intimate revelation to the world. God
does not simply command and expect obedience; He is also moved and affected
by what happens in the world and reacts accordingly. Events and human actions
arouse in Him joy or sorrow, pleasure or wrath. He is not conceived as judging
facts, so to speak, ‘objectively,’ in detached impassibility. He reacts in an intimate
and subjective manner, and thus determines the value of events. Quite obviously
in the Biblical view, man's deeds can move Him, affect Him, grieve Him, or, on
the other hand, gladden and please Him. This notion that God can be intimately
affected, that He possesses not merely intelligence and will, but also feeling and
pathos, basically defines the prophetic consciousness of God.”34

“The God of the philosophers is all indifference, too sublime to possess a heart or
to cast a glance at our world. His wisdom consists in being conscious of Himself
and oblivious to the world. In contrast, the God of the prophets is all concern, too
merciful to remain aloof to His creation. He not only rules the world in the
majesty of His might; He is personally concerned and even stirred by the conduct
and fate of man. ‘His mercy is upon all His works’ (Psalms 145:9).”35

“God does not judge the deeds of man impassively, in a spirit of cool detachment.
His judgment is imbued with a feeling of intimate concern. He is the father of all
men, not only a judge; He is a lover engaged to His people, not only a king. God
stands in a passionate relationship to man. His love or anger, His mercy or
disappointment is an expression of His profound participation in the history of
Israel and all men.”36

“The pagan gods had animal passions, carnal desires, they were more fitful,
licentious than men; the God of Israel has a passion for righteousness. The pagan
gods had selfish needs, while the God of Israel is only in need of man's integrity.
The need of Moloch was the death of man, the need of the Lord is the life of man.
The divine pathos which the prophets tried to express in many ways was not a
name for His essence but rather for the modes of His reaction to Israel's conduct
which would change if Israel modified its ways.”37

It is difficult to fully comprehend the revolutionary nature of this notion, as

it carries with it a complete theological reorientation. The very title of the

34
The prophets, pp. 223-224.
35
Alone, p. 244.
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid., p. 245.

13
work God In Search of Man gives the reader a jolt because it implies the
subjectivity of God.

This notion is unorthodox in its portrayal of an anthropomorphic God. The

normative understanding of God prevalent in Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy
is that of a perfect being, who is omnipotent and omniscient – a transcendent
being completely independent of His creatures and unaffected by what
happens to them. Philosophers argue that if God is truly sovereign, He must
be self-sufficient and remain unaffected by external influences. Being that
emotion is a response to external stimuli, philosophers would deride
Heschel’s conception of a God Who is affected by events in history and for
Whom the failure of man is a frustration to Him. They would regard such
statements as demeaning God. Furthermore, the idea of divine pathos,
namely, that God has a heart and a conscience, appears to be crude
anthropomorphism at best and blasphemy at worst.

The notion of divine pathos not only revolutionizes our understanding of

God, it also revolutionizes our understanding of the human relationship to
the divine.

Man’s relationship with God is commonly perceived as a one-sided affair.

We human beings are totally dependent on God; God however is not
dependent on us. Man needs God; God however does not need man. God is
the omnipotent and all-powerful sovereign of the world Whose orders we
must obey. God's relationship with man is viewed either from the
perspective of divide sovereignty or divine benevolence. He is our master as
well as benefactor. According to this scheme, God's relationship with man
exists only inasmuch as we need Him and depend on Him.

Likewise, religion is conventionally seen as the way in which temporal man

can reach out to the eternal God; the way in which man can elevate and
ennoble his existence. According to this view, the starting point of religion is
man's quest for God.

The notion of the divine pathos, however, entails a Copernican revolution

and entails a complete reversal of man’s religious orientation. Religion
originates not in man's quest for God, but in God's search for man. Man’s
knowledge of God is not a result of his search for Him; rather it is the result
of God’s concern for man. Religion is God's question and man's answer.

14
Instead of the starting point of religion being man's turning to God, the
starting point of religion is God's call to man and man’s response to Him.

“The decisive thought in the message of the prophets is not the presence of God to
man but rather the presence of man to God. This is why the Bible is God's
anthropology rather than man's theology. The prophets speak not so much of
man's concern for God as of God's concern for man. At the beginning is God's
concern. It is because of His concern for man that man may have a concern for
Him, that we are able to search for Him.”38

Instead of God being the object of man's thought, God is the Subject, and
man is the object of His thought:

“To the philosopher God is an object, to men at prayer He is the subject. Their
aim is not to possess Him as a concept of knowledge, to be informed about Him,
as if He were a fact among facts. What they crave for is to be wholly possessed by
Him, to be an object of His knowledge and to sense it.”39

God in Search of Man

This notion of the divine pathos and God's concern for man as the starting
point of religion has profound implications for the nature of religious rituals
and observance.

The significance and meaning of the Mitzvot (commandments) has been the
subject of much discussion in Jewish philosophy and theology. Some have
placed the emphasis on obedience, on the need to obey God's orders and
carry out His will, while others have placed the emphasis on the Mitzvot as
the way in which man sanctifies himself and imitates the divine. What all
these viewpoints share in common, however, is the centrality of Mitzvah to
man. Man is obliged to obey. Man ought to sanctify himself. According to
this understanding, the Mitzvot hold no personal significance to God.
Obeying the Mitzvot may enhance the value and merit of man in the eyes of
God, but the Mitzvot do not affect Him in any way.

Heschel shifts the emphasis of the Mitzvot from man to God. According to
Heschel the Mitzvot are an extension of God's relationship and concern with
38
Search, p. 412; cf. Not Alone, p. 129.
39
Not Alone, p. 128.

15
man. Life is not only man's sphere of interest; it is also God's sphere of
interest. The Mitzvot contain God's vision for man's task in the world. The
performance of the Mitzvot is the way in which man responds to the divine
call.

Thus, the Mitzvot are not only a concern of man, they are also a concern of
God. The Mitzvot matter to Him personally. Not only is our humanity at
stake in our actions, there is a divine stake in our actions as well. What is at
stake is the meaning of God's creation, not only the meaning of man's
existence.

Heschel takes this idea a step further. Not only is God concerned with man,
He is also in need of man. The relationship between God and man is a
mutual one. God entered into a covenant with man and forged a relationship
with him based on mutual reciprocity. God and man have a shared mission
and mutual responsibility. Man is God's agent and partner in creation and
redemption. When a person does a Mitzvah in this world, he is actually
assisting God in fulfilling His own duties. When one commits a sin not only
does he suffer a personal religious setback; he frustrates God’s master plan.

“There is only one way to define Jewish religion. It is the awareness of God's
interest in man, the awareness of a covenant, of a responsibility that lies on Him
as well as on us. Our task is to concur with His interest, to carry out His vision of
our task. God is in need of man for the attainment of His ends....God is a partner
and a partisan in man's struggle for justice, peace and holiness, and it is because
of His being in need of man that He entered a covenant with him for all time, a
mutual bond embracing God and man, a relationship to which God, not only man,
is committed.”40

“To fulfill the will of God in deeds means to act in the name of God, not only for
the sake of God; to carry out in acts what is potential to His will. He is in need of
the work of man for the fulfillment of His ends in the world.”41

“Mitzvot, then, are more than reflections of a man's will or transcripts of His
visions. In carrying out a sacred task we disclose a divine intention. With a sacred
deed goes more than a stir of the heart. In a sacred deed, we echo God's
suppressed chant; in loving we intone God's unfinished song… He has delegated

40
Not Alone, pp. 241-242.
41
Search, p. 291.

16
 to man the power to act in His stead. We represent Him in relieving affliction, in
granting joy.”42

Divine Concern, Religious Piety, and Social Justice

The human situation matters to God on a personal level. Morality, social

justice, and compassion for the oppressed are not only God's will (in a moral
sense) but also a personal concern of God. The way we treat another human
being matters to God. The oppression of man is a humiliation of God. A
crime against humanity is a crime against God.

To diminish the stature of man is to deface the image of God.

“He who oppresses a poor man insults His maker,

He who is kind to the needy honors Him.”43

Based on the above, we can understand that for Heschel concern for human
welfare and social justice is profoundly related to religious piety. True
humanism is a sacred humanism. The concern for human dignity mirrors our
respect for God in Whose image man was created. Love for our fellow
human beings is not only rooted in human kinship and fellowship; on a most
profound level, love of man is a reflection of love for God.

Many people think that religious piety can be compared to a vertical arrow
that points exclusively to the divine (Bein Adam La'makom) and does not
point horizontally from man to his fellow (Bein Adam La'chaveiro).
According to Heschel such a notion is sacrilegious. The same vertical arrow
that points to God also points directly to man, for man was created in God’s
image.
Heschel's social and political activism, such as his participation in the civil
rights movement, his concern for the plight of Russian Jewry, and his protest
against the war in Vietnam, was a direct result of his religious beliefs and
convictions regarding God's suffering when human beings are in distress and
God's indignation against human injustice. To use Heschel’s terminology, it
was an act of prophetic sympathy and emotional identification with the
divide pathos. Heschel felt very deeply how God weeps bitterly over man's
inhumanity to man.44

42
Search, p. 290.
43
Proverbs 14:31; cf. 17:5

17
 IV. The Polarity of Halacha and Aggadah45

Spiritual Devotion and Religious Behaviorism

One of the main issues that Heschel addresses in his work God in Search of
Man is the polarity and tension between Halacha and Aggadah.

Before dealing with the specific polarity of Halacha and Aggadah, it is

important to address a general dichotomy relating to the nature of religion in
general, namely, the dichotomy between religious devotion and religious
behaviorism.

One group of religious thinkers maintains that the essence of religion

consists of the spiritual state of the soul, in the intensity of one's inner
devotion, and in the purity of one's thoughts and feelings. According to
them, religion is solely concerned with the internal state of spiritual integrity
and is totally unconcerned with actions that affect the external realm.
Heschel points out that taken to the extreme, the concern for personal
righteousness and salvation can be more important than the fate and welfare
of humankind, as Fichte exclaimed “I would not break my word even to save
mankind!”46

A contrasting group of religious thinkers maintains that the primary concern

of religion is man’s deeds and actions. Actions speak louder than words, and
actions can affect the world in a way that man's deepest feelings and most
noble intentions cannot. One's religious commitment is to be defined and
measured by one's strict adherence to religious norms and by the punctilious
observance of Halachic minutia. Heschel points out that taken to the
extreme, the concern for the letter of the law can lead to a total neglect of the
spirit of the law and a total disregard for the character of the person as a
whole. “Some people are so occupied collecting shreds and patches of the
law, that they hardly think of weaving the pattern of the whole.”47

44
See Abraham Joshua Heschel, “The Reasons for My Involvement in the Peace Movement,” in Moral
Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity, pp. 224-226.

45
The following is based on Search, pp. 293-347, Theology of Ancient Judaism, Volume I, (New York:
Soncino Press, 1962), pp. I-XXXVI.
46
See Search, p. 295.
47

Search, p. 301.

18
Heschel remarks that these two polar opposites have been simplistically
viewed by many as one of the major differences between Judaism and
Christianity. Christianity is perceived as placing the emphasis on faith,
spiritual devotion, and the religious experience as the way in which to attain
salvation, whereas Judaism is seen to place the emphasis on legalism and
religious conduct.48

According to Heschel, to equate Judaism with legalism is an act of shallow

reductionism. Judaism is a holistic system which deals with the totality of
life. Judaism is neither concerned entirely with spiritual salvation nor is a
pan-legalistic system, but a total way of life. Judaism is an all-encompassing
guide for living which deals with the spiritual as well as the physical, with
the body as well as soul, with one's thoughts as well as with one's actions.
The two cannot be separated. Judaism is like an artistic masterpiece which
contains both a spiritual vision and a concrete expression.49

There is a relationship between inner devotion and external behavior;

between the inner essence of a person and the actions they perform. Faith
alone is insufficient, it has to be objectified and verified in concrete actions.
Likewise, actions alone are insufficient. It is not enough for actions to be
performed; the character of the person doing the action must be transformed.
Judaism is a science of deeds as well as an art of worship.50

The Polarity of Halacha and Aggadah

Although one cannot separate faith from deed, nevertheless, there is a

constant tension between these two aspects. This tension finds expression in
the polarity of Halacha and Aggadah.

Halacha refers to the normative code of conduct outlining the obligations

and prohibitions which are incumbent upon the Jew, and Aggadah refers to
the extra-legal material found in Jewish literature, such as Jewish folklore,

48
Heschel singles out Benedict Spinoza and Moses Mendelssohn as those who believed that the Jewish
religion is based exclusively on religious behaviorism, (see Search, pp. 321-322).
49
See Search, pp. 296, 297,344.
50

See Search, pp. 310-311.

19
aphorisms, anecdotes, homiletics, ethics, spiritually, and all other material of
a non-legal nature.

This distinction between Halacha and Aggadah, commonly understood as

constituting the difference between law and folklore, can be expanded to
include the difference between Halacha – law and Hashkafa – religious
outlook and ideology. Halacha deals with matters of Jewish law, and
Hashkafa deals with matters of Jewish philosophy and theology.

Heschel broadens these classifications of Halacha and Aggadah as

representing two distinct modes of religiosity.

Heschel beautifully describes the polarity of Halacha and Aggadah as

follows:

“Halacha represents the strength to shape one's life according to a fixed pattern; it
is a form-giving force. Aggadah is the expression of man's ceaseless striving that
often defies all limitations. Halacha is the rationalization and schematization of
living; it defines, specifies, sets measure and limit, placing life into an exact
system. Aggadah deals with man's ineffable relations to God, to other men, and to
the world. Halacha deals with details, with each commandment separately;
Aggadah with the whole of life, with the totality of religious life. Halacha deals
with the law; Aggadah with the meaning of the law. Halacha deals with subjects
that can be expressed literally; Aggadah introduces us to a realm that lies beyond
the range of expression. Halacha teaches us how to perform common acts;
Aggadah tells us how to participate in the eternal drama. Halacha gives us
knowledge; Aggadah gives us aspiration. Halacha gives us the norms for action;
Aggadah, the vision of the ends of living. Halacha prescribes, Aggadah suggests;
Halacha decrees, Aggadah inspires; Halacha is definite; Aggadah is allusive…
Halacha without Aggadah is dead, Aggadah without Halacha is wild.”51

Halacha deals with the letter of the law, with the stiff formality in which the
minutia of the law ought to be carried out; Aggadah deals with spirit of the
law, with the religious passion and spiritual vitality of the person who is
engaged is performing his religious duties.

Aggadah contains the grand vision of Judaism; it is concerned with spiritual

ends. Halacha contains the means by which to implement this vision in
reality. Halacha is a concrete means to achieve spiritual ends.

51
Search, pp. 336-337.

20
Halacha focuses on action, it deals with externalities of behavior; it is the
science of deeds. Aggadah focuses on intention, on the inwardness of the
soul; it is the art of worship.

Halacha commands by means of forceful authority; Aggadah motivates by

way of sublime inspiration.

Halacha is extrinsic to the person, it is superimposed from without. Aggadah

is intrinsic to the person, it blossoms from within.

Halacha is objective and impersonal; its main concern is the performance of

deeds and the attainment of concrete goals. Aggadah is personal and
subjective, it is concerned with the piety of the individual, and it focuses on
the transformation and redemption of one’s character.

Halacha deals with actions; Aggadah deals with faith.

Halacha is imposed; Aggadah is nurtured.

Halacha is regulated; Aggadah is spontaneous.

Halacha is scripted; Aggadah is improvised.

A Musical Analogy

The polarity of Halacha and Aggadah can be explained by way of a musical

analogy. A great musical masterpiece contains the expression of a deep
feeling and emotional experience and has the power to evoke deep feelings
and to stir the depths of the soul. At the same time, the composition of the
melody as well as its performance requires a great deal of technical mastery
and execution. Every melody contains both an emotional element and a
technical element. The emotion expressed in the melody is the soul and
content of the melody, while the precise arrangement of the notes and
rhythm is the form of the melody. In order for a melody to be a truly great
masterpiece, it must contain great content as well as great form. A musician
who performs a musical score with great technical virtuosity but without
feeling reduces a rhapsody of the soul into a mere mechanical performance.
Conversely, a musician who plays with great feeling and emotion but fails to
play the melody properly, distorts its essence.

21
If we explore this analogy further, we can understand the paradoxical nature
of a musical creation. On the one hand, elements of great creativity,
spontaneity, and inspiration go into the composition of the melody. As in
every great work of art, it requires an individualistic vision, a free spirit, and
spontaneous expression. On the other hand, a great degree of discipline,
meticulousness, and precision is required to ensure that the musical score is
performed flawlessly. As an art, music requires creativity, spontaneity, and
freedom; as a science, music demands rigidity, self-restraint, and discipline.

The same is true regarding a work of art. A work of art is imbued with a
deep personal vision. Its essence springs forth from a fountain of creativity
and vital force that animates the soul. However, together with the creative
freedom there is stiff rigidity. The production of art requires a very
demanding, specific, and exacting method of technical execution.

The Jewish religion is analogous to a melody; it contains a fountain of

creativity, a dynamic spirit, and a vital force that animates the soul as well as
a very demanding, specific, and exacting code of law which grounds the
spiritual flights of the soul into very concrete forms of behavior.
“The code of conduct is like the score to a musician. Rules, principles, forms may
be taught; insight, feeling, the sense of rhythm must come from within.
Ultimately, then, the goal of religious life is quality rather than quantity, not only
what is done, but how it is done.”52

“Halacha and Aggadah are correlated: Halacha is the string, Aggadah is the bow.
When the string is tight the bow will evoke the melody. But the string may jar in
the fumbler's hand.”53

The Dichotomy of Keva and Kavanah

Although Judaism is neither strictly Halachic nor strictly Agadic,

nevertheless, there are areas in which the pole of Halacha is stronger than
the pole of Aggadah and visa-versa. An example of this is the difference
between the Mitzvot of Tzedaka (charity) and Tefilah (prayer). When it
comes to Tzedaka it is the deed that counts. It is essential is that the pauper
52
Search, p. 338.
53
Search, p. 344.

22
receives the money. If one has the most noble intentions and great
compassion for the pauper but has no money to donate his feelings are of
little good. Conversely, one who donates generously – notwithstanding his
ulterior motives – fulfils the Mitzva of Tzedaka. When it comes to charity,
the deed outweighs the intention. When it comes to prayer, the spiritual
devotion and intention is paramount. Soulful communion outweighs
physical verbalization.

Prayer epitomizes the dichotomous relationship between Halacha and

Aggadah.54 By its very definition, prayer is an act of worship and
consequently the intensity of the religious experience lies at its very core.
However, if prayer would only take place spontaneously when a one's soul is
aroused and inspired to pray, people would pray very infrequently.
Moments of inspiration are brief and sporadic.55 For this reason, the Jewish
sages have affixed set times and standard texts for prayer. Thus in prayer we
have the tension between Keva (permanence or frequency) and Kavanah
(intention); between the spontaneous expression of an inspired soul and the
habitual performance of a daily routine.

Thus, prayer contains both a Halachic element as well as an Agadic element.

The worship of the heart, the agitated spirit, the ecstatic frenzy, the soulful
communion, forms its Agadic core. The fixed times and texts for prayer
together with the specific laws governing prayer, form its Halachic core.

There is a symbiotic relationship between the fixed element of prayer and

the devotional element of prayer. The regularity of prayer ensures its
constancy; the spontaneity of worship keeps its spirit alive. Keva without
Kavanah would reduce prayer to a routine of mechanized verbalization.
Conversely, Kavanah without Keva would relegate prayer to rare moments
of genuine inspiration.

Furthermore, not only does the regularity of prayer guarantee its

permanence, it also has the ability to evoke Kavanah. This can be
understood from the above-mentioned musical analogy. There is a reciprocal
relationship between a melody and the feelings it expresses. When one is

54
See Search, p. 343. For a more elaborate treatment of this subject, see Abraham Joshua Heschel, Man's
Quest for God: Studies in Prayer and Symbolism, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1954).

55
See Search, p. 344.

23
emotionally stirred they spontaneously burst out in song. In this scenario, the
emotion invokes the melody. However, the converse is also true, that upon
hearing a melody one's emotions are stirred. In this scenario, the melody
evokes the emotional response. The same is true of prayer, spiritual ecstasy
results in fervent Kavanah. Conversely, the recitation of prayers, when
accompanied with the proper focus and concentration, ignites the religious
fervor latent in the soul. “Kol me'orer ha-Kavanah” – The voice of prayer
evokes the intention.

Heschel points out that the dichotomy between Keva and Kavanah, between
regularity and spontaneity, constitutes a main feature of Jewish observance
as a whole. The reciprocal relationship between Keva and Kavanah, spiritual
devotion and good deeds – in addition to their inherent value – maintains the
constancy and vitality of the Jewish way of living.

The Agadic element of Judaism ensures that the spirit of Judaism remains
alive. The Halachic element of Judaism ensures that the pattern of Jewish
observance remains intact. If one observers all the details of the law, but
does so without passion, his observance will be mechanical and perfunctory.
His actions may be in accord with the requirements of the law, but his heart
and soul will not be suffused with the spirit of Judaism. Conversely, if one
remains a Jew only at heart and does not nurture and express his feelings in a
concrete manner – in addition to the fact that he would be neglecting his
religious duties and obligations – his religious vitality will ultimately wither
and die. Judaism is not a celebration of special occasions; it is the
consecration of prosaic actions and routine events. In order to keep the
spiritual order of Jewish existence alive, there is a need for a stable routine
of Jewish observance and commitment.
“Being bound to an order and stability of observance, to a discipline of worship at
set hours and fixed forms is a celestial routine…Loyalty to external forms,
dedication of the will is itself a form of worship. The Mitzvot sustain their halo
even when our minds forget to light is us the attentiveness to the holy…When
love is hibernating, our loyal deeds speak. It is right that the good actions should
become a habit…A good person is not he who does the right thing, but he who is
in the habit of doing the right thing. The absence of understanding at the moment
of performing a ritual act does not vitiate the meaningfulness of the act.”56

The sacred routine of action can affect spiritual devotion as well. The Sefer
HaChinuch explains how external actions can affect the soul:

56
Search, pp. 344-345.

24
 “Man is affected by all his actions; his heart and all his thoughts follow the deeds
which he does, whether good or bad. Though one be wicked at heart and all his
inclinations be always evil, if he makes a valiant effort to continually study the
Torah and follow its commandments, even if not out of pure motives, he will in
course of time incline toward the good, and, despite his engaging in religious
pursuits out of impure motives, he will come to follow them for their own sake…
On the other hand a perfectly righteous person, whose heart is upright and sincere,
who takes delight in the Torah and its commandments, but engages in offensive
manners – say, for example, that the king compelled him to pursue an evil
occupation – if he devotes himself to that business all the time, he will ultimately
turn from his righteousness and become wicked.”57

“Deeds not only follow intention; they also engender Kavanah. There is no static
polarity of Kavanah and deed, of devotion and action. The deed may bring out
what is dormant in the mind…Kavanah comes into being with the deed. Actions
teach.”58

Kavanah measures the inner realm of a person, but quality alone is not
enough. The quality of devotion has to be translated into a quantity of deeds,
and the only way to quantify deeds is by measure of their frequency. Man
not only lives in spirit; he lives in a physical body as well. The inner
experience of the soul must express itself in the physical actions of the body.

In addition to the synchronization of the rhythm of the soul with the rhythm
of the body, physical action also synchronizes the spiritual rhythm of the
soul with the dimensions of time and space by sanctifying moments in
history and physical spaces. The deed also bridges the gap between
individuals and community, between the private and public domains. Man
must not only be concerned with his own personal salvation, but with the
welfare of humanity and the sanctification of the world as a whole.

A Fine Balancing Act

The relationship between Halacha and Aggadah is a complex one. Halacha

and Aggadah are not two independent domains; they are two sides of the
same coin, marked by a dialectical relationship. They are both rivals and
allies; they either complement each other or collide with another; they form
either a polarity or a plurality. The marriage of Halacha and Aggadah can
produce either a discordant cacophony or a harmonious symphony.
57
Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 20, translated by Heschel in Search, pp. 345-346.
58
Search, p. 345.

25
We must avoid the pitfalls of – what Heschel terms – “pan-halachism” 59 as
well as “pan-agadism.” Some equate Judaism with legalism and reduce
Judaism to a pan-halachism. Conversely, there are those who try to keep the
spirit of Judaism alive yet totally neglect the law. We must avoid both
extremes. Halacha and Aggadah are not mutually exclusive; rather they form
a polarity which calls for a delicate balancing act.

“There is no Halacha without Aggadah, and no Aggadah without Halacha. We must

neither disparage the body nor sacrifice the spirit. The body is the discipline, the pattern,
the law; the spirit is inner devotion, spontaneity, freedom. The body without the spirit is a
corpse; the spirit without the body is a ghost. Thus a Mitzvah is a discipline and an in-
spiration, an act of obedience and an experience of joy, a yoke and a prerogative. Our
task is to learn how to maintain a harmony between the demands of Halacha and the spirit
of Aggadah.”60

Comments and Observations

Heschel's exposition on the polarity of Halacha and Aggadah is a polemic

against religious spiritualism as well as religious behaviorism. It is a polemic
against the movements within Judaism that have abandoned the observance
of Halacha, as well as a critique of the movements in Judaism that focus so
much on the punctilious of observance of Halacha, that they neglect the
spirit of the law and lose sight of the holistic pattern of Jewish living. It is in
opposition to the latter groups that Heschel makes some of the following
statements:

“Through sheer punctiliousness in observing the law one may become oblivious
to the living presence and forget that the law is not for its own sake bur for the
sake of God. Indeed, the essence of observance has, at times, become encrusted
with so many customs and conventions that the jewel was lost in the setting.
Outward compliance with the externalities of the law took the place of the
engagement of the whole person to the living God. What is the ultimate objective
of observance if not to become sensitive to the spirit of Him, whose ways the
Mitzvos are signposts?

Halacha must not be observed for its own sake but for the sake of God. The law
must not be idolized. It is part, not all, of the Torah. We live for the sake of God
rather than for the sake of the law.”61

59
See Search, pp. 323; 328.
60
Search, p. 341.
61
Search, p. 326.

26
Furthermore, it seems that Heschel not only negates a pan-halachic theology,
but places primacy on Aggadah over Halacha. Although Heschel himself
writes “it is impossible to decide whether in Judaism supremacy belongs to
Halacha or to Aggadah.”62 Nevertheless, that statement is followed by a
statement “A view of the supremacy of Aggadah is reflected in the following
tradition.”63 This and other statements64 have led critics65 to believe that
Heschel favors Aggadah over Halacha. They view Heschel’s approach as
containing a dangerous streak of antinomianism which seeks to undermine
the authority of Halacha. Heschel however falls short of saying that what is
called for is a minimum of Halacha and a maximum of Aggadah (as he says
in similar instances with regard to other polarities in Judaism 66). Using the
abovementioned musical analogy, Heschel may argue that a musical

62
Search, p. 340.
63
Ibid.

64
Consider the following statements:

“The goal is not that a ceremony be performed; the goal is that man be transformed; to worship the Holy in
order to be holy. The purpose of the Mitzvot is to sanctify man” (Search, p. 311).

“Such pan-halachic ‘Theology’ claims that in Judaism religious living consists of complying with a law
rather than of striving to attain a goal which is the purpose of the law. It is a view that exalts the Torah only
because it discloses the law, not because a way of finding God in life. It claims that obedience is the
substance rather than the form of religious existence; that the law is an end, not a way.

Judaism is not another word for legalism. The rules of observance are law in form and love in substance…
The law is the means, not the ends; the way, not the goal. One of the goals is ‘Ye shalt be holy.’ The Torah
is guidance to an end through a law. It is both a vision and a law. Man created in the likeness of God is
called upon to re-create the world in the likeness of the vision of God. Halacha is neither the ultimate nor
the all-embracing term for Jewish learning and living.” (Search, p. 323).

“Halacha does not deal with the ultimate level of existence. The law does not create in us the motivation to
love and to fear God, nor is it capable of endowing us with the power to overcome evil and to resist its
temptations, nor with the loyalty to fulfill its precepts. It supplies the weapons, it points the way; the
fighting is left to the soul of man.” (Search, p. 338).

65
See Marvin Fox, “Heschel, Intuition, and Halachah,” in Collected Essays on Philosophy and on
Judaism, Volume II (Binghamton, NY: Global Publications, 2001), pp. 55-64. See also the scathing critique
of Alan J. Yuter, “Review of Abraham Joshua Heschel: Prophetic Witness by Edward K. Kaplan and
Samuel H. Dresner (New Haven and London: Yale, 1998),” Tradition 34:1 (Spring, 2000), pp. 88-92.

66
Cf. Not Alone, p. 170, “A minimum of creed and a maximum of faith is the ideal synthesis” and Search,
p. 274, “Judaism is based upon a minimum of revelation and a maximum of interpretation.”

27
performance delivered without passion, no matter how technically brilliant,
ultimately amounts to nothing more than a dead performance.67

In the final analysis, Heschel's brilliant exposition on the polarity of Halacha

and Aggadah compels us to rethink the monolithic and unitary model of
Judaism and presents us with a more pluralistic vision of Judaism, which
engenders a greater appreciation for its complexity and diversity.

V. Reflections

Heschel's style

Heschel's work God in Search of Man is not easily amenable to analysis and
systemization. This work contains the outpouring of a profoundly inspired
soul rather than a systematic treatise by a rational philosopher. It is less
effective in persuading the mind with convincing arguments than in kindling
the soul with its blazing spiritual passion. The book's weakness lies in its
lack of presenting a systematic theology; its strength lies in its power to
evoke a higher spiritual consciousness. One who is looking for an orderly
philosophical system may find much wanting, whereas one who is seeking
spiritual edification will be richly rewarded.

Heschel’s work lends itself both to a micro-reading and a macro-reading. It

is important to focus on the intricacy of the details as well as the general
contours. Indeed, is possible to discern a three-fold structural pattern
inherent in Heschel's work: a) the individual flashes of insight, pearls of
wisdom, and aphorisms contained on every page b) the more general
treatment of the particular theme being addressed c) above and beyond the
specific theme being addressed, there are certain ideas that are frequently
repeated in the book. These comprise the overarching themes and leitmotifs
that form the building blocks of Heschel's thought. It is important to pay
attention to the multi-faceted and multi-layered quality of the work in order
to appreciate it fully.

Evaluating Heschel

Heschel's work assumes a unique place among works of Jewish philosophy.

Most works on Jewish philosophy can fit into two categories: a) apologetic
works that attempt to reconcile religion with science and philosophy and
67
Cf. the Chassidic attitude to prayer.

28
provide a rational basis for religion b) normative works espousing the
principles, doctrines, and teachings of religion based on traditional sources.
Paradoxically, Heschel's greatest strength and weakness lies in eluding this
neat categorization.

For the skeptic this work is insufficient; for the dogmatist it is superfluous.
The skeptic will fault Heschel for espousing an overly intuitive approach
while completely overlooking the realm of reason. Indeed, it can be argued
that the way in which Heschel deals with the challenges of rational and
scientific thought is by taking a leap over the intellect – a leap of faith – that
may be perceived as intellectual escapism. Likewise, the dogmatist will fault
Heschel for relying too much on a universal intuitive approach to faith rather
than basing himself on the normative teachings of tradition. Indeed, Heschel
places himself at odds both with the rational skeptic and with the dogmatic
traditionalist.

Ironically, however, Heschel's strength lies precisely in his ability to offer a

unique perspective on religion, which transcends the dogma-versus-reason
debate that is so prevalent in contemporary religious discourse. By ascribing
primacy neither to reason nor to dogma and by making depth-theology his
focal point he engenders a genuine appreciation for religion that transcends
the boundaries of both dogmatic fundamentalism and rational skepticism.

A similar area where Heschel’s unique contribution has raised both praise
and criticism is the relationship between depth-theology and a universal faith
consciousness vis-à-vis the specific doctrines and teachings of the Jewish
religion.

One of the major appeals of Heschel's work lies in its universal scope. As
opposed to the works of religious exclusivists, whose starting point for
religion is the particular teachings and principles of a religious tradition,
Heschel is a religious universalist and inclusivist who starts with a universal
religious sensibility, then works his way up to a specific religious outlook –
Biblical theology and finally reaches the exclusive domain of Jewish
theology.

Here we are faced with a dilemma, how does one with a universal religious
consciousness embrace a particular religious tradition? How does one
remain uncompromisingly loyal to one's particular religion while at the same
time promoting a universal language of faith shared by all humanity? How

29
can these two forms of religion – universal and particular, parochial and
cosmopolitan coexist?

It appears that Heschel himself has struggled with this issue, 68 and it may be
argued that the way he dealt with it is by stressing the notion that religion
(and all of life) involves a polarity.69 One pole of religion is universal while
the other pole is particular. The antecedents of faith are general; religious
creeds are specific. Depth-theology is unanimous; normative theology is
subject to denominational disputes.

“There are many creeds, but only one universal faith. Creeds may change,
develop and wither away, while the substance of faith remains the same in all
ages. The outgrowth of creed may smash and seal the doom of faith. A minimum
of creed and a maximum of faith is the ideal synthesis.”70

Orthodox Jewish traditionalists fault Heschel for overly emphasizing the

universal dimension of faith, which can detract from one's loyalty to the
particular dogmas and behavioral norms of the Jewish religion.71

Conclusion

In an age when there is an increasing tendency amongst certain Orthodox

Jewish thinkers and practitioners to focus excessively on the dogmatic
contents and behavioral norms of Judaism to the exclusion of all else,
Heschel’s shift of focus to depth-theology and universal spirituality serves as
a corrective and is therefore refreshing and revitalizing. One of the unique
features of Heschel’s thought is his synthesis of religion, spirituality, and
sacred humanism. Heschel merges traditional Jewish faith and practice with

68
It is important to mention in this regard Heschel's ecumenical efforts. See his essay “No Religion Is an
Island” published in Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity, pp. 235-50.

69
See Search, p. 341. This notion of polarity is a recurring theme in Heschel's thought, and he applies it to
various areas that entail elements of conflict and tension. His most comprehensive treatment of this subject
is to be found in his magisterial work in Hebrew Torah min ha-shamayim be-aspaklaryah shel ha-dorot
(Theology of Ancient Judaism), (London and New York: Soncino Press vol. 1, 1962, vol. 2, 1965, New
York: Jewish Theological Seminary, vol. 3, 1995).
70
Not Alone, p. 170.

71
For a discussion concerning interfaith dialogue, see Reuven Kimelman, “Rabbis Joseph B. Soloveitchik
and Abraham Joshua Heschel On Jewish-Christian Relation,” The Edah Journal 4:2 (Kislev, 5765),
http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/4_2_Kimelman.pdf

30
a universal spiritual quest, a profound ethical concern, and the values of a
sacred humanism.

While in some fundamentalist religious circles there tends to be an ever-

increasing shift towards a very narrowly defined religious parochialism and
an obsessive fixation on minor details to the point of ignoring the bigger
picture, Heschel's religious orientation is one that embraces the totality of
life. While there are some who are preoccupied with creating a walled ghetto
and confine themselves to the four cubits of law, Heschel reminds us of the
universal vision of religion – the redemption of all humanity. For Heschel,
the microscopic attention to Halachic minutia ought not to blind one’s
macroscopic vision on the global task of Tikkun Olam.

Heschel transcends conventional bifurcations and dichotomies. Heschel’s

philosophy combines religious faith with spiritual sensitivity, personal piety
with social responsibility, man’s quest for God with humanitarian concern,
Halachic commitment with ecstatic fervor, and inner devotion with
affirmative action. In his own personal life, Heschel integrated Chassidic
ecstasy with modern philosophy, Halachic commitment with spiritual
yearning, religious piety with humanitarian concern, scholarly pursuits with
social activism, loyalty to the Jewish community with interfaith dialog.

In the final analysis, Heschel uncovers a dimension of religion that

revolutionizes our very understanding of religion and broadens its horizons.
Heschel’s original insights and refreshing approach gives us a renewed
appreciation for religion in general and Judaism in particular. His teachings
contain a vital force that continues to revitalize Judaism and spawn a
genuine spiritual renaissance.

31
 Bibliography

Berkovitz, Eliezer. Major Themes in Modern Philosophies of Judaism. New

York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974.

Cherbonnier, Edmond. “Divine Pathos and Prophetic Sympathy,”

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/divine.htm

Fox, Marvin. Collected Essays on Philosophy and on Judaism. Vol. 1-3.

Binghamton, NY: Global Publications, 2001.

Heschel, Abraham Joshua. God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism.

New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1955 and Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1956.

—. Man Is Not Alone: A Philosophy of Religion. New York: Farrar, Straus

and Young, and Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America,
1951.

—. Man's Quest for God: Studies in Prayer and Symbolism. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1954.

—. The Prophets. New York: Harper and Row, and Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1962.

32
—. Theology of Ancient Judaism (Torah min ha-shamayim be-aspaklaryah
shel ha-dorot). London and New York: Soncino Press, Vol. I, 1962; Vol. II,
1965; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, Vol. III, 1995.

Heschel, Susannah, ed., Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity: Essays by

Abraham Joshua Heschel. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1996.

Kimelman, Reuven. “Rabbis Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Abraham Joshua

Heschel on Jewish-Christian Relations,” The Edah Journal, Volume 4, No.
2, Kislev 5765.
http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/4_2_Kimelman.pdf

Yuter, Alan J. “Review of Abraham Joshua Heschel: Prophetic Witness by

Edward K. Kaplan and Samuel H. Dresner (New Haven and London: Yale,
1998),” Tradition 34:1 (Spring, 2000).

33
34