PaRDeS and Scripture
PaRDeS, historical criticism, inspired Scripture, lectio divina, rabbinic voices, early fathers, and reading the New Testament in the depth of Israel's Scriptures.
32 min
The surface is not disposable, and the depth is not optional.
There is a shallow way to be historical, and there is a shallow way to be mystical.
The shallow historical reader keeps the text on the table like a dissected thing. Dates, sources, redaction, politics, plausible memory, literary construction: all necessary, all useful, all capable of becoming a small empire of control. The shallow mystical reader floats above the text and calls every difficult question a lack of faith. Symbols multiply. History thins. The body disappears. The text becomes a mirror for whatever the reader already wanted to see.
Scripture deserves better than both.
The New Testament, read seriously, does not ask us to choose between historical flesh and mystical depth. Its central claim is already the refusal of that split: the Word became flesh. The Logos entered time, body, language, politics, execution, burial, memory, interpretation, liturgy, and fire. If the Word became flesh, then peshat matters. If the Word is the Logos, then sod matters. The surface is not disposable, and the depth is not optional.
This is where PaRDeS becomes useful, if handled carefully.
PaRDeS is often presented as the Jewish fourfold way of reading Scripture: peshat, remez, derash, sod. The acronym itself, as Britannica notes, is a later formulation, first used in medieval Spain as a way of naming four interpretive principles. That historical point matters. We should not pretend that Jesus, Paul, or the evangelists were walking around with a fully developed medieval acronym in their pockets.
Yet the impulse behind PaRDeS is much older: Scripture is read as plain sense, hint, searching interpretation, and mystery. Second Temple Judaism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, rabbinic midrash, targumic expansion, apocalyptic vision, and early Christian figural reading all live in a world where texts are not treated as flat information. They are fields of resonance. They speak in more than one register.
The danger is real. Chagigah 14b tells the famous story: four entered the pardes, the orchard. Ben Azzai died. Ben Zoma was harmed. Aher cut down the shoots. Rabbi Akiva came out in peace. Before they entered, Akiva warned them about a vision of pure marble stones: do not say, "Water, water." In other words, the visionary realm is not a playground. The secret level of Torah can expose the reader's lack of stability. Depth without truthfulness becomes distortion. Ecstasy without discipline becomes damage.
That warning belongs at the doorway of this essay.
To read the New Testament through PaRDeS is not to escape history into fantasy. It is to enter the orchard with shoes still dusty from the road. The cross happened. Rome executed Yeshua under Pontius Pilate. The earliest followers of Jesus did not begin with a general mystical principle and then invent a biography for it. They began with a man, a death, an emptying shock, experiences of resurrection, and a sudden rereading of Israel's Scriptures so intense that the old texts began to burn from within.
Peshat is usually translated as the simple or plain sense. That can mislead modern readers. Plain does not mean simplistic. The peshat of a text may require grammar, archaeology, historical context, genre, textual criticism, social memory, and patience. A literalistic reading can actually violate peshat by refusing to ask what kind of text is in front of us.
Peshat asks: What is this text saying in its own world?
In the Tanakh, that means Hebrew and Aramaic, covenant, kingship, exile, temple, wisdom, apocalyptic imagination, lament, prophecy, poetry, priesthood, land, empire, and the strange pressure of the Name. In the New Testament, it means Second Temple Judaism under Roman power, Galilee and Judea, Greek as literary medium, Aramaic memory underneath some sayings, synagogue, temple, Pharisees, Sadducees, apocalyptic hope, messianic expectation, imperial violence, and the crisis created by a crucified and risen Messiah.
Peshat is not the enemy of faith. It is one of faith's disciplines.
A Christian who cannot bear peshat has not yet fully accepted incarnation. God does not save us through vague religious atmosphere. The gospel names places, rulers, bodies, meals, wounds, witnesses, misunderstandings, failures, and deaths. The Apostles' Creed ties Jesus to Pontius Pilate for a reason. The creed refuses to let Christ become myth in the weak sense: an eternal idea with no blood on the ground.
Historical criticism, when done honestly, can purify Christian reading. It removes lazy harmonization. It shows that the Gospels are theological witnesses, not stenographic transcripts. It reveals the evangelists as authors, not cameras. It makes us notice that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John shape their material differently. It prevents the reader from using "the Bible says" as a way of avoiding the actual complexity of the Bible.
This does not make Scripture less sacred. It makes it harder to domesticate.
Still, a Christian reading of Scripture cannot stop at historical method.
The Bible is not only an archive of ancient religious texts. It is inspired Scripture. The phrase from 2 Timothy 3:16 is θεόπνευστος, theopneustos: God-breathed. That word matters. Scripture carries breath. It has passed through human language, historical circumstance, scribal transmission, genre, editing, memory, poetry, argument, and community, yet the church receives it as more than the sum of those processes. The Spirit breathes through the human words without abolishing their humanity.
This is why inspiration should not be confused with flatness.
An inspired text is not a text without texture. It is not a text exempt from philology, history, textual criticism, or literary attention. The inspiration of Scripture does not require the reader to pretend that Gospel differences are not real, that the Tanakh has no compositional history, or that theological narration is the same thing as modern reportage. Inspiration means that through this complex human witness, God addresses, forms, wounds, heals, judges, and illumines.
The Spirit does not make careful reading unnecessary. The Spirit makes careful reading prayer.
Here the New Testament itself gives the rule. In Luke 24, the risen Christ opens the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures. In John 16, the Spirit of truth guides into truth. In 1 Corinthians 2, Paul says that the Spirit searches even the depths of God. The deeper mysteries are not seized by intelligence alone. They are received by participation in the Spirit who knows the depths from within.
This is the decisive limit of PaRDeS as a "method."
A method can train the reader's attention. It can teach reverence for layers. It can prevent the stupidity of choosing between surface and depth. But no method can force sod open. The mystery is not conquered. It is given. The orchard is entered by grace, or it becomes another place where the ego performs spirituality.
This matters especially for Christian nonduality. The false self loves advanced interpretation. It wants rare meanings, hidden codes, superior insight, and the pleasure of seeing what others miss. The Spirit leads differently. The Spirit opens Scripture in a way that humbles, clarifies, burns, and returns the reader to love. If a deep reading makes the reader more arrogant, more contemptuous, more detached from the suffering body, or more careless with history, it has missed the Spirit.
The inspired book requires an inspired reading.
That does not mean every reader becomes infallible. It means the deepest reading of Scripture is ecclesial, prayerful, repentant, and Spirit-led. The reader does not stand over the text as owner. The reader sits under the Word as one being read.
The crucifixion of Jesus stands on unusually strong historical ground.
The Gospel narratives differ in detail, but they converge on the central claim: Yeshua was executed by Roman authority under Pontius Pilate. Paul, writing earlier than the Gospels, treats the death of Christ as received tradition and "of first importance." Tacitus, no Christian sympathizer, locates the execution of Christus under Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Josephus is more complicated because the Testimonium Flavianum has plainly passed through Christian hands, but many scholars judge that an authentic core remains, including the point that Pilate condemned Jesus to death after accusations from leading Jewish figures. The St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology summarizes the caution well: certainty about the original wording is impossible, yet the Josephan passage probably confirms the involvement of Jewish aristocratic leaders and Pilate in Jesus' execution.
That is peshat.
It does not yet say what the cross means cosmically. It says that a Jewish teacher and prophet of the kingdom was killed by Rome. Crucifixion was not a neutral death. It was imperial theatre. Rome used the cross to make bodies into warnings. It said: this is what happens to those who disturb the order of the world.
The inscription "King of the Jews" matters here. Whatever else one says about the trial narratives, the charge makes political sense. Rome did not crucify people for being spiritually interesting. Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom, his symbolic action in the temple, his following among the people, his messianic atmosphere, and the explosive Passover setting all place him within the range of Roman concern. The peshat of the cross includes power, fear, priestly anxiety, empire, and the public humiliation of a body.
Christian theology becomes thin when it forgets this.
The cross is not first a religious logo. It is a Roman instrument of terror. Before it becomes jewelry, doctrine, hymnody, or icon, it is wood, nails or ropes, nakedness, blood, mockery, suffocation, public exposure, and a mother watching her son die. Any sod that cannot stay near that peshat becomes obscene.
And yet the New Testament never leaves the cross at bare event.
Paul says that Christ died for sins "according to the Scriptures." Luke presents the risen Jesus opening Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Acts reads Psalm 16 and Psalm 110 into the resurrection and exaltation. The passion narratives echo Psalm 22, the righteous sufferer, the rejected stone, the Passover, the suffering servant, Zechariah, Daniel, and temple symbolism. The early Jesus movement did not merely remember the crucifixion; it searched Israel's Scriptures until the wound became legible.
This is where remez and derash begin to matter.
Remez is hint, resonance, the small pressure in a text that points beyond itself. Derash is searching, inquiry, interpretation that draws connections, argues, applies, presses, and sometimes surprises. In Jewish tradition these modes are not childish games imposed on otherwise clear texts. They emerge from the conviction that Scripture is a living textual world, and that one passage may illuminate another across time.
The New Testament writers are Jewish readers before they are Christian theologians in any later institutional sense. They read as people inside Israel's scriptural imagination. They hear phrases carry earlier worlds with them. They know that sea, mountain, cloud, bread, wilderness, temple, king, son, stone, shepherd, vine, lamb, and throne are never merely isolated images.
Richard Hays's work on echoes of Scripture is important precisely because it refuses a crude prooftext model. The evangelists are not simply grabbing verses out of context to win an argument. They are narrating Jesus in such a way that Israel's Scriptures become the deep grammar of the story. Hays calls this reading backwards: the story of Jesus opens the Scriptures, and the Scriptures teach the reader how to perceive Jesus.
That does not cancel Jewish peshat.
Psalm 22 is not secretly only about Jesus in a way that erases its first voice. It is a psalm of lament, terror, mockery, bodily distress, and eventual praise. Isaiah 53 lives in the complex world of Isaiah's servant songs, Israel, exile, suffering, restoration, and vicarious meaning. Exodus is first Israel's liberation from Egypt. The Passover lamb is first Passover. The temple is first the temple. Christian reading becomes violent when it treats Israel's Scriptures as raw material waiting passively for Christian ownership.
But the opposite error is also too thin.
If one says that Psalm 22 can only mean what it meant in its earliest recoverable historical setting, one has already chosen a modern reduction. Scripture itself refuses such confinement. Later biblical books reread earlier ones. The prophets reread Torah. The Psalms reread Exodus. Daniel rereads Jeremiah. Qumran's pesharim reread the prophets as speaking into the community's own eschatological moment. Rabbinic midrash reads with a freedom that modern flatness often finds alarming. The New Testament belongs within this world of rereading, even when its claims become distinctively Christic.
Sod is usually translated as secret or mystery. The word can suggest hidden information, as if the point were to discover a code. That is too small. Sod is the depth at which the text discloses the mystery of God, the soul, creation, judgment, mercy, and the hidden unity of things.
The sod of the cross is not a clever interpretation laid on top of a historical execution. It is the abyssal meaning that opens when the historical event is seen from within the life of God.
At peshat, Jesus is crucified by Rome.
At remez, the cross begins to shimmer with Psalm, Passover, temple, servant, king, scapegoat, righteous sufferer, and new exodus.
At derash, the early community searches the Scriptures and proclaims that this death was not a defeat outside God's purposes but the strange center of them.
At sod, the cross becomes the place where divine love enters godforsakenness without ceasing to be love.
The cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", cannot be reduced to a doctrine. It is the opening of Psalm 22 in the mouth of the crucified. It is Israel's lament, the sufferer's prayer, the human experience of abandonment, and the descent of the Son into the place where God seems absent. The mystery is not solved by saying, "He was quoting a psalm," as if citation removed agony. Nor is it solved by saying, "God abandoned God," as if paradox itself were depth. The cry is both text and wound.
Sod listens where explanation becomes indecent.
Here the cross also becomes nondual in a Christian sense. The deepest separation, the cry of abandonment, is taken into the life of communion. The wall between God and the condemned place is crossed from God's side. Violence spends itself against a love that does not answer in kind. The false religious and imperial orders expose themselves. The victim becomes the revelation of the Father. The dead one becomes the living center.
This is not an escape from history. It is history seen from the depth where God is at work.
PaRDeS is not permission for undisciplined Christian imagination.
Chagigah 14b is severe because it knows that mystical reading can go wrong. "Four entered the orchard" is not a decorative story about spiritual adventure. It is a warning about perception. The deeper levels of Torah require humility, formation, and truthfulness. Akiva's warning about the marble stones is a warning against misnaming what one sees. The visionary reader must not cry "water, water" where there is no water.
This is one of the reasons Christian readings of the Tanakh need repentance.
There is a form of Christological reading that is really conquest. It enters Jewish Scripture, tears words from their house, declares the original inhabitants blind, and calls the theft fulfillment. That is not sod. It is spiritual colonization with pious vocabulary.
There is also a form of historical criticism that becomes allergic to revelation. It treats any deep Christian rereading as intellectually suspect because the only acceptable meaning is the earliest recoverable human intention. That too is a kind of misnaming. It sees marble and refuses depth because depth cannot be controlled by method.
The better way is harder.
Preserve peshat with reverence. Let Jewish texts remain Jewish. Let the Tanakh speak in its own grammar. Learn Hebrew. Attend to genre. Know the history. Feel the wound of Christian anti-Judaism and refuse to repeat it. Then, as a Christian reader, allow the crucified and risen Yeshua to open the Scriptures from within the mystery of his life, death, and resurrection.
This is not a neutral reading. No serious reading is neutral. It is a disciplined, confessed, accountable reading.
The rabbis help us enter this discipline more honestly.
Ben Bag-Bag, at the end of Pirkei Avot, gives one of the most beautiful descriptions of Torah study: turn it over and turn it over, because everything is in it. The Hebrew is physical: הֲפָךְ בָּהּ וַהֲפָךְ בָּהּ, hafokh bah va-hafokh bah. Turn her. Turn her again. The text is not exhausted by one pass. It is not consumed by the first meaning found. One grows old in it. One wears oneself into it. Torah becomes a place of lifelong return.
That line belongs near PaRDeS because it gives the mood of the orchard. Scripture is not a disposable container for information. It is a field of return. The serious reader does not skim the surface and then announce mastery. He turns the text. He allows the text to turn him. He returns not because the text failed to speak, but because it spoke more than he could receive the first time.
Rabbi Ishmael supplies another necessary voice: דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, dibberah Torah kilshon benei adam, the Torah speaks in the language of human beings. In Berakhot 31b, the principle restrains over-reading. Not every repetition must bear a hidden deduction. Not every doubled phrase is a secret mechanism. Sometimes divine speech has entered human idiom so fully that it sounds like human speech.
That is a deep safeguard for Christian readers.
If Ben Bag-Bag teaches us to keep turning, Rabbi Ishmael teaches us not to become intoxicated with cleverness. The text may be inspired without every syllable becoming a puzzle to exploit. God-breathed Scripture still speaks in human language, genre, rhetoric, convention, and ordinary forms of expression. Inspiration does not abolish grammar. The Spirit does not despise idiom.
Rabbi Akiva, standing at the entrance to the pardes in Chagigah 14b, gives the third voice: when you reach the pure marble stones, do not say "water, water." He is not warning against depth. He is warning against false perception. The mystical reader can misname what is seen. The deepest danger is not that there is no mystery, but that the ego sees mystery and immediately turns it into speech it cannot justify.
Those three rabbinic voices form a rule for this essay.
Ben Bag-Bag: keep turning.
Rabbi Ishmael: honor human language.
Rabbi Akiva: do not lie about what you see.
Together they keep PaRDeS from becoming fantasy. They also keep historical criticism from becoming spiritually deaf. The reader is allowed to return to the text again and again because "all is in it"; required to honor the text's plain human speech because Torah speaks in human language; and warned that the secret places demand truthfulness because not every shining surface is water.
This is why Christian reading of the Tanakh must be bold and chastened at the same time. Bold, because the risen Christ really does open the Scriptures. Chastened, because Israel's teachers have already warned us that Torah is turned over across a lifetime, spoken in human language, and dangerous when misperceived.
The walking on water is a perfect test case.
At the level of modern historical criticism, the story is not as straightforward as the crucifixion. Mark, Matthew, and John tell related but distinct versions. Luke does not include it. Matthew adds Peter walking on the water. John places the story in his own theological sequence after the feeding and before the bread of life discourse. Mark has the strange phrase that Jesus "wanted to pass by them." These are not the marks of a flat report copied from a police transcript.
The story is theological narrative.
That sentence should not be heard as dismissal. Theological narrative is not a polite term for fiction. It names a mode of truth in which memory, symbol, Scripture, confession, and literary shaping meet. Ancient biography and biblical narrative do not operate according to modern journalistic expectations. They are interested in what happened, but they are also interested in what the event reveals.
The walking on water story reveals through Tanakh.
Job 9:8 speaks of God as the one who stretched out the heavens and treads upon the sea. The Hebrew is vivid: דּוֹרֵךְ עַל־בָּמֳתֵי יָם, dorekh al-bamotei yam, treading on the high places or back of the sea. Psalm 77 says that God's way was through the sea, God's path through mighty waters, though the tracks were unseen. Exodus 14 gives the primal sea-crossing: YHWH drives back the waters, the sea becomes dry ground, Israel passes through.
When Mark says that Jesus comes to the disciples walking on the sea, he is not merely saying that Jesus can perform a difficult miracle. The sea in Israel's Scriptures is chaos, threat, depth, empire, death, and the place where YHWH alone makes a way. To walk there is to stand inside divine prerogative.
Then comes the phrase "he wanted to pass by them."
Modern readers often find this odd. Why would Jesus intend to pass them by when they are in danger? But "passing by" carries theophanic weight. In Exodus 33, YHWH passes by Moses. In 1 Kings 19, YHWH passes by Elijah. The language does not simply mean that God walks past someone. It means revelation, hiddenness, nearness, danger, mercy, and the partial disclosure of divine presence.
Mark is staging a sea-theophany.
John intensifies the matter with ἐγώ εἰμι, ego eimi: "I am" or "It is I." At the peshat level, the phrase can mean ordinary self-identification. In John's Gospel, however, no attentive reader can miss the wider resonance. The same Gospel will place "before Abraham was, I am" on Jesus' lips. The sea, the darkness, the fear, the Passover context of John 6, the feeding, the bread discourse, and the ego eimi together create a field of meaning.
Again, this does not require a crude argument.
We do not need to say, "Job predicted a future man walking across Galilee." That is too small. Nor do we need to say, "The story is only a theological construction, therefore spiritually disposable." That is too modern and too dull. The better reading asks how the evangelists use Israel's Scripture to disclose Jesus' identity.
The answer is powerful: Yeshua appears where Israel knows YHWH to be active: over the waters, in the crossing, in the hidden path, in the terrifying nearness that says, "Do not fear."
Larry Hurtado helps keep this from becoming vague mysticism.
Hurtado's work on early devotion to Jesus argues that a striking pattern of Jesus-devotion emerged very early, within Jewish monotheistic circles, shortly after the crucifixion. This was not simply a slow paganizing drift in which a Jewish teacher was gradually turned into a Hellenistic god. Hurtado insists that the phenomenon belongs inside the dynamic world of ancient Jewish traditions, even though it was also a remarkable mutation in devotional practice.
This matters for PaRDeS.
The earliest believers did not merely develop a new opinion about Jesus. They prayed in his name, invoked him, confessed him as Lord, sang hymns around him, baptized into his name, shared the Lord's Supper, and read Israel's Scriptures around him. In Hurtado's terms, Jesus became included in the devotional pattern by which Jewish believers related to the one God.
That does not erase the Father. In the New Testament, Jesus is exalted by God, receives from God, is sent by God, obeys God, and is confessed to the glory of God the Father. The pattern is not simple ditheism. It is a new configuration within Jewish monotheism: the one God of Israel known through the crucified and risen Son.
This is why the walking on water matters.
It is not an isolated wonder tale. It belongs to the same deep movement as Philippians 2, where a hymn-like passage moves from humiliation to exaltation and bends Isaiah's universal confession of YHWH toward Jesus, while still ending in the glory of God the Father. It belongs to the same movement as Acts 2, where Psalm 16 and Psalm 110 become the scriptural grammar of resurrection and enthronement. It belongs to the same movement as John's Gospel, where the signs are never merely signs; they are disclosures of glory.
The New Testament reads the Tanakh as the matrix in which Yeshua becomes visible.
It is tempting to say, simply, that the Hebrew Bible is full of Jesus.
I think that is true.
But it must be said with care.
The Tanakh is not a Christian codebook in which every verse has a hidden Jesus password. It is Israel's Scripture: Torah, Prophets, Writings; covenant, creation, exile, return, wisdom, lament, law, temple, kingship, judgment, mercy, apocalypse, and praise. It has its own integrity. Christian readers who rush past that integrity do not find Christ more deeply. They find a projection.
At the same time, the Christian claim is that Yeshua is not an external addition to Israel's story. He is the strange fulfillment, crisis, embodiment, and unveiling of it. He is not visible by flattening the text into predictions. He becomes visible when the whole scriptural world is read in the light of crucifixion and resurrection.
This is why Luke 24 is so important. The risen Jesus opens the Scriptures, beginning with Moses and the prophets, and then speaks of the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. That is not a verse-hunting session. It is the conversion of the whole scriptural imagination.
The Messiah is not found only in explicit messianic prooftexts. He is found in Adam and image, Abraham and promise, Isaac and beloved son, Jacob and wrestling, Joseph and rejected brother, Moses and exodus, manna and bread, David and kingship, Solomon and temple, Elijah and fire, Jonah and descent, Jeremiah and tears, Isaiah and servant, Daniel and son of man, Ezekiel and chariot, Zechariah and pierced one, the Psalms and the suffering righteous, Proverbs and Wisdom, the Song and desire, the temple and presence, the sacrifices and communion, the Name and the mystery of divine nearness.
Some of these connections are stronger than others. Some are textual. Some are thematic. Some are liturgical. Some belong to the church's later contemplative reading. They should not all be treated as the same kind of argument.
PaRDeS helps precisely here.
Peshat asks what Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Psalms, or Daniel meant in their own worlds.
Remez notices hints, patterns, echoes, verbal resonances.
Derash searches, argues, connects, teaches, proclaims.
Sod asks what mystery of God and human life is being disclosed when all these texts are gathered in the crucified and risen One.
Confusing the levels produces bad reading. Separating them completely produces dead reading.
The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the early Jesus movement was not alone in reading Scripture as addressed to the present moment.
The Qumran pesharim interpret prophetic texts as speaking into the life of the community. The Hebrew-Aramaic term pesher means interpretation or explanation. Pesher Habakkuk, for example, reads Habakkuk in relation to the Teacher of Righteousness, the Wicked Priest, the Kittim, and the community's eschatological crisis. Encyclopedia.com describes pesher as a genre that contemporizes biblical prophecy according to the worldview of the Qumran community.
This is not the same as the New Testament's Christological reading. The content is different. The center is different. But the phenomenon matters historically. Jewish readers around the turn of the era could treat Scripture as a living prophetic field whose deepest referent was being unveiled in their own time.
The early followers of Jesus did something analogous and more radical.
They read the Scriptures as reaching their decisive crisis in Yeshua: his ministry, death, resurrection, exaltation, Spirit, and coming kingdom. This does not make their reading arbitrary. It locates it within a Jewish apocalyptic-hermeneutical world where the text's fullness becomes visible at the turning of the age.
The difference is the cross.
Qumran reads Scripture around community, Teacher, opposition, purity, covenant, and eschatological expectation. The New Testament reads Scripture around a crucified Messiah whom God has raised and exalted. That is why its rereading is so shocking. The scandal is not simply that Jesus is called Messiah. The scandal is that the shameful death itself becomes the place where the mystery of God is revealed.
Modern readers often feel forced into a false choice.
Either the Gospel stories happened exactly as written in a flat literal sense, or they are theological constructions and therefore less true. Either the Hebrew Bible consciously predicted Jesus in hundreds of direct ways, or Christian interpretation is dishonest. Either historical criticism is faithlessness, or mystical reading is anti-intellectual.
These choices are too poor for Scripture.
The Emmaus story gives a better model. The disciples know the events. They can recite the peshat of disappointment: Jesus was handed over, condemned, crucified, and now reports of an empty tomb have confused them. The risen Jesus does not discard the facts. He opens the Scriptures. Their hearts burn as the text becomes transparent to a pattern they had not perceived.
Burning heart is not anti-intellectual. It is the intellect caught by fire.
The highest reading is not less critical. It is more capable of holding multiple forms of truth without collapse. It can say: the crucifixion is historically solid. The resurrection claim belongs to the earliest Christian proclamation. The walking on water story is shaped as theophanic narrative. Mark and John are not giving identical accounts. Job 9, Psalm 77, Exodus 14, and the ego eimi language deepen the scene. The evangelists read Israel's God through Yeshua. Hurtado's early devotion thesis gives historical weight to the speed and Jewishness of this development. Hays helps us hear the scriptural echoes. Boyarin reminds us that the boundaries between Judaism and Christianity were not born as clean modern categories.
The result is not a weaker faith.
It is a faith with fewer lies in it.
This is where lectio divina belongs.
Lectio divina is not a substitute for exegesis. It is the prayerful ripening of exegesis into encounter. The old monastic pattern is usually named in four movements: lectio, meditatio, oratio, contemplatio. Read. Meditate. Pray. Contemplate. Guigo II, the twelfth-century Carthusian, gave the Western tradition one of its classic formulations of this ladder of reading and prayer.
Placed beside PaRDeS, lectio divina is not identical, but the kinship is beautiful.
Lectio begins close to peshat. The words are read slowly. The reader notices what is actually there: grammar, image, sequence, voice, wound, command, silence. Meditatio begins to hear remez and derash. A word glows. A phrase returns. One text calls another. The mind chews, searches, turns, listens. Oratio answers. The text becomes prayer, confession, protest, surrender, thanksgiving, intercession. Contemplatio rests where sod begins to open: no longer using the text, no longer explaining oneself through the text, but receiving the Presence toward which the text has been carrying the soul.
This is not anti-intellectual reading.
Lectio divina becomes sentimental when it refuses study. Exegesis becomes sterile when it refuses prayer. The two need each other. A serious Christian reader may spend the morning with Greek syntax, source criticism, rabbinic parallels, and Second Temple texts, then sit quietly with one line until it becomes fire in the body. The first labor protects the second from fantasy. The second protects the first from becoming control.
In this sense, lectio divina is a Christian discipline for entering the orchard without violence.
It teaches the reader to slow down. It makes room for the Spirit. It allows Scripture to become living speech rather than religious data. It refuses the consumer's impatience that wants meaning immediately. It also refuses the scholar's temptation to treat meaning as something mastered once explained.
When lectio divina is joined to PaRDeS, the Bible becomes both studied and received. Peshat keeps the reader from floating. Remez awakens the ear. Derash gives the mind permission to search. Sod opens only as the Spirit leads. Lectio lets all of that become prayer.
The movement is simple and severe: read until the text speaks; meditate until the heart is implicated; pray until the self stops pretending neutrality; contemplate until the Word is no longer outside you as an object, but alive as Presence.
The early church fathers belong in this conversation as well, though they must be heard carefully.
Origen is the obvious doorway. In On First Principles, Book IV, he argues that Scripture has a body, soul, and spirit. The body is the obvious or historical sense. The soul edifies the reader morally. The spirit opens the deeper mystery. This is not identical to PaRDeS, and it should not be forced into a one-to-one scheme. But the family resemblance is strong enough to matter. Origen knows that Scripture has layers because the human person has layers, and because the Spirit has hidden divine wisdom in words that can be received at different depths.
Origen also gives a warning that fits this essay: the spiritual meaning requires divine help. He can speak daringly about hidden treasures in the field of Scripture, yet he does not present spiritual interpretation as a clever reader's private triumph. The Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit; therefore their deepest meaning cannot be pried open by technique alone. This aligns with the Christian claim made above: PaRDeS can train attention, but only the Spirit opens sod.
Augustine adds another criterion: love.
In On Christian Doctrine, Augustine says that the fulfillment and end of Scripture is the love of God and neighbor. That may sound simple until one applies it to interpretation. A reading that becomes brilliant but loveless has failed. A reading that gathers hidden meanings while producing contempt has failed. A reading that uses Scripture to escape mercy has failed. For Augustine, the interpreter is not merely solving a text. He is being trained in charity.
This is a powerful check on both Christian and mystical overreach. The final test of deep reading is not whether it is impressive. The final test is whether it bears the fruit of love: caritas, charity, the purified movement of the heart toward God and neighbor. If the Christic reading of the Tanakh makes Christians arrogant toward Jews, it has betrayed Christ. If a mystical reading makes one superior to ordinary believers, it has missed the Spirit. If historical criticism makes one contemptuous of prayer, it has also lost the end.
Gregory of Nyssa gives us the ascent.
In The Life of Moses, Gregory reads the journey of Moses from Egypt to Sinai as a pattern of the soul's movement toward God. The historical story remains the source, but it becomes a map of purification, desire, darkness, and endless progress into the incomprehensible divine life. Gregory is not embarrassed by the spiritual reading of history. He understands that the Exodus can be both Israel's story and the soul's story, both historical memory and mystical pedagogy.
That matters for the walking on water. The sea crossing of Exodus remains Israel's liberation. The Gospel sea-theophany remains a crafted disclosure of Yeshua. At the same time, the soul knows the sea. It knows darkness, contrary wind, fear, the unseen path of God, and the voice that says: ego eimi, do not be afraid. Gregory helps us see that Scripture's history can become the soul's geography without ceasing to be history.
Ephrem the Syrian gives the most tender voice.
In his Commentary on the Diatessaron, Ephrem speaks of the word of God as inexhaustible, like a spring that quenches thirst without being drained. The reader receives according to capacity; the treasure remains larger than the portion found. That is perhaps the most beautiful patristic echo of Ben Bag-Bag. Turn it over and over, because all is in it. Drink from the spring, and do not imagine you have emptied it.
Ephrem also matters because he is Syriac, poetic, symbolic, and deeply biblical without becoming a system-maker in the Western sense. His way of reading is full of images, garments, hiddenness, symbols, light, womb, river, pearl, robe, medicine, and song. He does not flatten the text into concept. He lets Scripture sing.
So the fathers add their own chorus.
Origen: Scripture has body, soul, and spirit.
Augustine: the end of interpretation is love.
Gregory: the biblical journey becomes the soul's ascent.
Ephrem: the Word is an inexhaustible spring.
Placed beside the rabbis, they deepen rather than replace the Jewish voices. Ben Bag-Bag and Ephrem both refuse exhaustion. Rabbi Ishmael and Origen both, in different ways, force us to consider how divine meaning inhabits human words. Akiva and Augustine both warn the interpreter that depth without truth and charity becomes dangerous. Gregory and the whole Exodus tradition remind us that the soul walks inside the scriptural world.
The best Christian reading of Scripture should sound like this: Jewish enough to honor the orchard, patristic enough to know the spiritual sense, historical enough to keep the body, and prayerful enough to wait for the Spirit.
The deepest Christian reading of the Tanakh is not that Jesus can be inserted everywhere. It is that the Logos is the inner coherence of creation, covenant, wisdom, prophecy, temple, kingship, suffering, and return.
The Gospel of John says that in the beginning was the Word. That sentence does not begin in a church building. It begins where Genesis begins. It also speaks in a world where Jewish reflection on Wisdom, Word, Memra, Torah, and divine agency was already alive. Daniel Boyarin has argued, in different ways across his work, that certain ideas Christians later treated as uniquely Christian had deep roots in Jewish textual and theological worlds. One need not accept every detail of Boyarin's reconstruction to see the larger point: early Christology did not arise in a vacuum outside Judaism.
Sod, then, is not a private Christian trick. It is the contemplative perception that the mystery Christians name as Christ is not foreign to Israel's depths.
The Logos is not an afterthought.
The suffering righteous one is not an accident.
The divine path through the sea is not a decorative background.
The temple is not merely a building later replaced by a doctrine.
The Name, the glory, the angel of the Lord, Wisdom, Son of Man, servant, king, priest, prophet, lamb, shepherd, bridegroom, stone, vine, bread, light: all of these become, in Christian sod, dimensions of one mystery gathering itself toward Yeshua.
Again, this must be said without contempt for Jewish readings. Judaism does not fail because it does not read the Tanakh as Christians do. Judaism remains a living tradition of covenantal reading, prayer, law, argument, mystical ascent, and sanctification. Christian reading should be bold, but never arrogant. The church has no right to handle Israel's Scriptures with triumphalist stupidity after centuries of anti-Jewish violence.
The Christian claim is confession, not ownership.
We say: in Yeshua, the God of Israel has opened the Scriptures to us in this way. We do not say: Israel's own reading is meaningless until we arrive.
The orchard remains dangerous because Scripture is dangerous.
Peshat can become reduction.
Remez can become cleverness.
Derash can become manipulation.
Sod can become delusion.
But the danger is not a reason to stay outside. It is a reason to enter with humility.
The cross teaches the method. The deepest mystery is attached to the most concrete wound. The historical event is not discarded when sod opens; it becomes more unbearable and more luminous. The walking on water teaches the same method from the other side. A story that historical criticism cannot treat with the same confidence as the crucifixion may still carry immense theological truth because it is composed inside Israel's scriptural world. Its truth is not less because it is literary. It is literary in order to be theologically exact.
This is the kind of reading ClarityOne should practice: source-led, historically awake, Jewishly literate, christologically bold, mystically serious, and free from the childish fear that depth will destroy truth.
Let peshat keep us honest.
Let remez train our ears.
Let derash teach us to search.
Let sod burn without consuming the text.
Let lectio divina turn reading into prayer, and let the Spirit lead where technique cannot go.
Then the New Testament can be read as it asks to be read: as Jewish testimony to Yeshua, the crucified and risen One, in whom Israel's Scriptures do not become smaller, but stranger, more wounded, more alive, and more radiant from within.
The orchard is open.
The cross stands at its center.
Read one Gospel scene slowly through four movements: peshat, what is actually there; remez, what echoes; derash, what the text asks of you; sod, what the Spirit opens. Then let lectio divina turn the whole reading into prayer.
פַּרְדֵּס (pardes)
Orchard, garden, paradise. In Chagigah 14b, "four entered the pardes," a mystical ascent or encounter with the loftiest secrets of Torah. Later, PaRDeS becomes the acronym for four modes of interpretation.
Chagigah 14b; later PaRDeS tradition
פְּשָׁט (peshat)
Plain, simple, spread-out sense. The grammatical, contextual, historical, literary meaning of a text. Peshat is not crude literalism; it is disciplined attention to the text's own world.
PaRDeS: plain sense
רֶמֶז (remez)
Hint, allusion, signal. A resonance in the text that points beyond the immediate surface, often through verbal echo, image, pattern, or symbolic pressure.
PaRDeS: hint or allusion
דְּרַשׁ (derash)
Search, inquiry, interpretive probing. The mode of reading associated with midrashic exploration, moral and theological application, and scriptural cross-connection.
PaRDeS: searching interpretation
סוֹד (sod)
Secret, council, mystery. The depth-dimension of Scripture where the mystery of God, creation, the soul, and redemption becomes contemplatively visible.
PaRDeS: mystery or secret counsel
מַעֲשֵׂה מֶרְכָּבָה (ma'aseh merkavah)
The work or account of the chariot. Rabbinic language for mystical reflection on Ezekiel's chariot vision and the divine throne-world.
Mishnah Chagigah 2:1; Ezekiel 1
אַרְבָּעָה נִכְנְסוּ בַּפַּרְדֵּס (arba'ah nikhn'su ba-pardes)
"Four entered the orchard." The opening phrase of the Chagigah 14b story of Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, Aher, and Rabbi Akiva.
Chagigah 14b
דּוֹרֵךְ עַל־בָּמֳתֵי יָם (dorekh al-bamotei yam)
"Treading on the high places/back of the sea." Job 9:8, a key Tanakh resonance behind the Gospel image of Jesus walking on the sea.
Job 9:8
בַּיָּם דַּרְכֶּךָ (bayyam darkekha)
"Your way was through the sea." Psalm 77:20 in the Hebrew versification; divine path through waters whose tracks are unseen.
Psalm 77:19-20
ἐγώ εἰμι (ego eimi)
"I am" or "It is I." In John 6:20 it can be ordinary self-identification, but within John's Gospel it carries deeper divine-name resonance.
John 6:20
παρελθεῖν (parelthein)
"To pass by." Mark 6:48 uses the phrase in the walking-on-water scene; many readers hear theophanic echoes of YHWH passing by Moses and Elijah.
Mark 6:48
הֲפָךְ בָּהּ וַהֲפָךְ בָּהּ (hafokh bah va-hafokh bah)
"Turn it over and turn it over." Ben Bag-Bag's counsel in Pirkei Avot 5:22 about lifelong Torah study and inexhaustible return to the text.
Pirkei Avot 5:22
דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם (dibberah Torah kilshon benei adam)
"The Torah speaks in the language of human beings." A rabbinic principle associated with Rabbi Ishmael that restrains over-reading and honors divine speech in human idiom.
Berakhot 31b; rabbinic hermeneutic
σῶμα, ψυχή, πνεῦμα (soma, psyche, pneuma)
"Body, soul, spirit." Origen's threefold language for Scripture's historical, moral, and spiritual senses.
Origen, On First Principles IV
caritas (caritas)
Charity, love. Augustine's criterion for interpretation: the end of Scripture is love of God and neighbor.
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine I.36
θεόπνευστος (theopneustos)
"God-breathed." The word used in 2 Timothy 3:16 for inspired Scripture. The image is not mechanical dictation but divine breath moving through the scriptural witness.
2 Timothy 3:16
πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας (pneuma tes aletheias)
"Spirit of truth." John 16:13 names the Spirit as the one who guides into truth, which matters for any Christian claim to enter the deeper mysteries of Scripture.
John 16:13
lectio divina (lectio divina)
"Divine reading." A Christian practice of prayerful Scripture reading, classically moving through lectio, meditatio, oratio, and contemplatio: reading, meditation, prayer, and contemplation.
Guigo II, Scala Claustralium
The ClarityOne Letter
If this opened something you would like to keep exploring, The ClarityOne Letter gathers new essays, studies, videos and contemplative notes—usually twice a month.
Free to receive. Unsubscribe at any time.
By subscribing, you agree to receive The ClarityOne Letter by email. We will first send you a link to confirm your address. You can unsubscribe at any time. Privacy Policy