There are some, within Messianic/Hebrew Roots circles, who have concerns with calling Hebraic Exegesis "PaRDeS". Some of those concerns are legitimate and I'll always be the first to admit it. However, the basis for their concern is often (almost always) faulty. In fact, it falls closely parallel to superstitious paranoia in some cases.
If you have not read my Article on Bible Study Methods, it might be a good preface to this Article.
Exegesis noun, plural ex·e·ge·ses [ek-si-jee-seez].
critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/exegesis
Most conversations I have with the adamantly opposed start with an outright dismissal of the 'idea' completely and the vast majority of them admit deferring to the Greek method of exegesis known as Hermeneutics. Frankly, they are very much the same thing but devised for very different purposes.
The number one opposition expressed is usually that it began with Kabbalism. This would be a completely legitimate worry if it were completely true. I'll openly agree, it appears to have first been organized into a formal process by Kabbalists. This alone isn't as big of a deal as they like to make of it though. The first Bible was organized by a heretic named Marcion. Marcion was a staunch dualist, who believed and taught the Torah was given by a demiurge (created lesser god) who also happened to have been the creator god of the physical realm as well. He further taught the "Old Testament" was irrelevant because it was a record of how this demiurge duped the descendants of Avraham into following his appointed leader (Moses) into the wilderness so he could enslave them with his Law. As a result of this doctrine, Marcion taught that Law and Grace are opposed to one another and the New Testament God was a God who acted only from Love and there was no place for Law, or Justice for that matter, in His Heavenly realm. He offered only mercy and forgiveness, never Judgement. So Marcion's Bible, for his followers who he called "The New Testament Church", included Luke minus the first 4 Chapters, 10 of Paul's letters, and of course Marcion wrote his own "Gospel". He twisted Paul from a very Greco-Roman perspective and made certain nothing of the Hebrew Yeshua/Jesus or Paul were ever presented to his cult he called the "church".
Even knowing Marcion had organized the first Bible with nefarious intent, the opponents of the idea of calling Hebraic Exegesis "PaRDeS" still often attempt to refute any claim that the individual components can be found in usage throughout Scripture. But they still use a Bible daily. Yes, the Bible idea has been redeemed from Marcion's corruption and that's a very GOOD thing. Yet, if one is going to reject one thing seen in Scripture itself and demonstrated by Yeshua and the Apostles because it was defiled and branded by a cult (as is often cited by those to whom I am referring), then we need to remain consistent. Else we look like hypocrites who cherry-pick what is OK to redeem and what is not. That would clearly put us in league with the Christian Rationalists our own circles tend to revile. Would it not?
We cannot claim this is apples and oranges. Both were God's then perverted and later redeemed, as I'll demonstrate.
According to multiple reliable sources, the one I'll use first is neutral - in the Encyclopedia Britannica, we find the following periods each of the individual components of PaRDeS were predominantly used. This will establish a historical timeline that is essential to show it was used long before the corrupted version was established in Kabbalism.
"Depending on the needs or preferences of a particular historical period, one of the four principles generally gained a dominant position. During the early scribal and rabbinical period (c. 4th century BC–c. 2nd century AD), peshaṭ was preferred. Later, in the Talmudic period (c. 3rd–6th century AD), the inferred sense (derash) was viewed as more adequately communicating the intent of the divine author of the text—i.e., making the text more relevant by seeking in it ethical and religious implications. Both remez and sod, which allowed for greater speculation, favourite interpretive methods of the Kabbalists, Jewish mystics who flourished in Europe and Palestine during the Middle Ages and the early modern period."
While not totally inaccurate, there is additional information we'll need to consider to balance this properly, or else we become guilty of confirmation bias...
Using verifiable sources Wikipedia offered this information:
"Pardes (פרד"ס) is a Kabbalistic theory of Biblical exegesis first advanced by Moses de León,[1] adapting the popular "fourfold" method of medieval Christianity.[2][3][4][5][6] The term, sometimes also rendered PaRDeS, means "orchard" when taken literally, but is used in this context as a Hebrew acronym formed from the initials of the following four approaches..."
[2] Caplan, Harry 1929 "The Four Senses of Scriptural Interpretation and the Mediaeval Theory of Preaching" pgs 282
[3] Scholem, Gershom Gerard 1972 "On the Kabbalah and it's Symbolism" pg 61
[4] Scholem, Gershom Gerard 1990 "With a Worker" (written in Hebrew) pg 249
[5] Idel, Moshe 1989 "Language, Torah, and the Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia" pg 188
[6] Cooper, Alan "The Four Senses of Scripture and their Afterlife" www.sbl-site.org
I will come back to the 'four approaches' a little further into this discussion.
In fairness... I can and do understand the reluctance some feel concerning this topic, and this is not an endorsement of the use of PaRDeS as some will surely falsely claim. It is however an examination of the slothfulness in not reclaiming something legitimate that has been stolen and corrupted. I simply feel it's unnecessary and frankly, a knee-jerk reaction to outside criticism (most of which is imaginary) that causes many to believe somehow paralleling each component of PaRDeS to one of the 4 basic principles of Hermeneutics (and they do match to varying degrees) as if redeeming what was corrupted, stolen and misused by cultists is an error. If this is the case, they better dismantle their Bibles and go back to purchasing individual scrolls lest they become hypocritical. Again, both the idea of PaRDeS and the idea of a Bible were ideas stolen by our enemy, and imitated. In a moment we will examine exactly how I can make this claim.
Before that, however, we need to address their willful and admitted use of Hermeneutics, as they need to consider its source as well then. It was not intended nor created as a Bible Exegetic tool. According to Oxford Bibliographies, "the origins of hermeneutics is often traced back to the ancient Greek figure of Hermes, the messenger of the gods. In Plato, hermeneutic knowledge is understood as revealed and intuitive, and hence different from truth-oriented and discursively based theory". It doesn't get more pagan than that. It also sounds a whole lot like their most adored reason for rejecting it. Even though in their refutation they only cite things that support their claims and I've never once heard any of them balance it with the true origins of PaRDeS as something stolen from very early believers in Yeshua and polluted for selfish purposes. Yet, they still accept Hermeneutics as a totally legit means of exegesis?
As leaders and teachers, we have to carefully weigh the positions we take ,and remain consistent from one to another. We cannot claim Christian holidays cannot be redeemed because their origins are pagan and then use Hermeneutics as our standard or only means of exegeiss when its origins are clearly pagan and were most likely established by "Hermes the messenger of the gods". Clearly, this is folklore, BUT it does absolutely establish the connection between paganism and Hermeneutics. Especially, when we refuse to acknowledge that PaRDeS is a misdirected imitation of the Fourfold Method devised by ancient fellow believers.
Another example that is useful can be found in the story of the Codex Washingtonianus (aka Codex Freerianus or simply Codex W). In short, the Smithsonian has the sole known remaining copy of this particular organized Bible, of sorts. It contains the 4 Gospels in the Westernized order and is arguably known to be from the 1st Century. Acquired by an American businessman (C.L. Freer) in 1906 some have dated it to the 4th or 5th Century but according to many Linguists and Paleographers, both the writing style and the materials indicate it is older and very likely late 1st Century. It includes the names Bar'nabas and the name of his cousin (some claim his nephew) John-Mark as the transcribers. When examined under various types of microscopes, it can be seen that each letter was originally in Hebrew/Aramaic and carefully scraped and then written over in Greek. Personally, I would consider this the "first" organized Bible and Marcion's to be a corrupted and stolen pattern from the Kingdom to be used by darkness. Very much in the same way we see a pattern of the usage of the individual parts of PaRDeS in timeframes (as noted above from Britannica), plus throughout Scripture and later taken by the Mediaeval Kabbalist author Moses de León.
Let's pause on that for a moment. Did you notice the conflict of information from Britannica to Wikipedia? By instinct, I'd be inclined to accept Britannica, without reservation, over anything on Wikipedia except for one thing, in this case. The citations in the Wiki note are rock solid and easily verified by anyone willing to put in the time.
In case you didn't see the conflict, and it's a little subtle unless this is material you've covered at length...
Here it is:
Britannica says "Both remez and sod... [were] favourite interpretive methods of the Kabbalists, Jewish mystics who flourished in Europe and Palestine during the Middle Ages and the early modern period.
Wiki says "Pardes (פרד"ס) is a Kabbalistic theory of Biblical exegesis first advanced by Moses de León,[1] adapting the popular "fourfold" method of medieval Christianity."
The fact is, it's not a conflict at all. The Fourfold Method refers to an early exegetic used by Christianity that was devised from the Judaic methods used circa 20BC-50BC as recorded by Philo of Alexandria. Such works as "Psychomachia" (Soul-War) by Prudentius about 400AD/CE used the "Allegorical Sense" of the Fourfold Method.
Now, let's examine the Fourfold against PaRDeS... then come back to this.
The Four "Senses" in the Fourfold Method are:
Literal - worded exactly as intended, precise
Allegorical - tends to focus on the spiritual sense of a passage
Tropological - a moral context from the figurative meaning of a passage
Anagogical (Anagoge) - mystical (meaning spiritual) understanding of events alluding to the Afterlife
This method was clearly used as early as the 3rd Century by Origen who formulated the Literal Sense, Moral Sense, and Allegorical/Spiritual Sense using Galatians Chapter 4. Further evidence can be found in the 4th Century as we see with the work of Prudentius cited above.
This is well ahead of the life and work of the writer of the Zohar and Kabbalah, Moses de León, who lived from 1250-1305AD/CE.
Yet today many are still afraid of someone misjudging them over a hack who stole legitimate and historically used exegetical methods, yet they still use a Bible, a concept likely stolen and imitated by a heretic (ie Codex W and Marcion's "Bible of the New smTestamen Church").
This makes me scratch my head in wonder. Why do we give the enemy ground and not take it back?
Torah itself says we are to make a thief repay 7fold what was stolen. But we shy away from what cults steal from the Kingdom?
Let's look at PaRDeS now...
Peshat - meaning literal or plain text
Remetz* - meaning hints or allusive/Allegorical
Derash - meaning inquire (midrashic) explained through parallel or similar situations also known as parables
Sod - meaning secret given by revelatory knowledge not previously known
Does any of that sound familiar? It should, since you can find them used individually throughout Scripture AND they were recorded by 3-4th Century followers of Messiah (as previously noted) who had likely not all yet fully strayed into Antinomianism! This is a key and principal point. The closer to the 1st Century we go back to, in terms of Theological thought, the less likely that all involved in the formation of Christian Doctrine had become believers in the heresies of Marcion. It's a well established truth that the saturation of Marcion's lies into Christian Theology were not solidified until nearly 2 centuries after likely being codified by Constantine; so somewhere between the 5th and 6th Century AD/CE.
Yet, we reject the premise of the early believers' exegeses (plural) because a 13th to 14th century Judaic heretic stole and corrupted the very same thing...? Taking that a step further, we can see the usage of each from Genesis to Revelation and we still reject it because it was hacked and sidetracked by a heretic who didn't even accept Yeshua as Messiah...?
Remetz/Remez is the only word not used in Scripture itself, but the principle is clearly seen. However, while the word itself cannot be found in Scripture, the principle can. But we have to see if from the perspective of the Fourfold Method (or Senses of Scripture) and dissociate it from the commonplace misunderstanding represented by the Kabbalists. In the following quotes from Ray Vander Laan* (of "That the World May Know" fame) you can see a far better representation of the USAGE of Remets/Remez in Scripture itself. In fact, by Messiah Yeshua Himself.
"The great teachers (rabbis) during Jesus' day used a technique that was later called remez. In their teaching, they would use part of a Scripture passage in a discussion, assuming that their audience's knowledge of the Bible would allow them to deduce for themselves the fuller meaning of the teaching. Apparently, Jesus, who possessed a brilliant understanding of Scripture and strong teaching skills, used this method often."
"For example, when the children shouted "Hosanna" to him in the temple and the chief priests and teachers of the law became indignant (Matt. 21:15), Jesus responded by quoting Psalm 8:2: "From the lips of children and infants, you have ordained praise." The religious leaders' anger at Jesus can be better understood when we realize that the next phrase in the Psalm reveals why children and infants offer praise, because the enemies of God would be silenced. The religious leaders realized that Jesus was implying that they were God's enemies."
Jesus used this teaching method again when speaking to Zacchaeus. "For the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost," Jesus said (Luke 19:10). The background to this statement is probably Ezekiel 34. God, angry with Israel's leaders for scattering and harming his flock, stated that he would become the shepherd and would seek the lost ones and save them. Based on this, the people of Jesus' day understood that the Messiah to come would "seek and save" the lost. By using this phrase, knowing that his listeners knew the Scripture, Jesus communicated several things. To the people, he communicated, "I am the Messiah and also God." To the religious leaders, whose influence kept Zacchaeus out of the crowd, he said, "You have scattered and harmed God's flock." To Zacchaeus, he said, "You are one of God's lost sheep and he still loves you."
Jesus best fit the type of rabbi believed to have s'mikhah, the authority to make new interpretations of the Torah. Whereas most teachers of the law could only teach accepted interpretations, teachers with authority could make new interpretations and pass legal judgments. Crowds were amazed because Jesus taught with authority (Matt. 7:28-29), and some people even questioned the source of His authority (Matt. 21:23-27). In the above examples, He "hinted" with subtle "allusions" to His meaning, and from the reactions we see, it was effective.
Many opponents of any recognition of the use of an Hebraic Exegesis, often use the information contained in the meme below, yet will deny its a Remetz/Remez connected to a Sod. That would require admitting it's Yeshua using "hints" to reveal something "secret". Peter expereinced Revelatory Knowledge (Sod) to determine Yeshua was the "Son of God" and was praised for having had that experience. Once more showing the Principles of PaRDeS, as STOLEN from righteous sources, being used within Scripture itself and by multiple members of the Messiah's own narrative - including Messiah Himself.
This is the most often kind of "hint" intended by anyone mentioning Remetz, except for POSSIBLY those given to a completely Kabbalistic perspective. I say possibly, because of all the Progressives I know in Israel, NONE use Remetz from the perspective that one may subjectively decide what Scripture (or a person/teacher) means when employing Remetz/Remez as a teaching tool. Literally, not one. I think the quotes above (from Ray Vander Laan) are the best examples I have found of the usage of Remetz/Remez. Again, this is not to say that it cannot be perverted and as a realist, I am certain it has - even without Kabbalaism. However, from conservative followers of Scripture, especially those who follow Yeshua, the mention of Remetz/Remez should always parallel Allegorical and/or the Tropological from the Fourfold/Senses PaRDeS was stolen from.
The key here is that we need not allegorize Scripture, but we certainly cannot dismiss that there are allegories given in Scripture and they are used to reveal things people didn't previously know. More on this, from Psalm 78 and Mathew 13 below.
It is by exegesis that we can prove the current canon is legitimately inspired and unlike other pedagogical, pseudepigraphic, or apocalyptic extra-biblical writings which may be helpful but are not inspired.
This is a good place to introduce Hermeneutics (reiterate for those who follow my work) into our discussion, so we can begin seeing how they too align with other means of exegesis and how combined, the various methods mentioned in this blog can serve as a system of checks and balances for one another and keep us from crossing into eisegesis.
Eisegesis noun, plural eis·e·ge·ses [ahy-si-jee-seez].
an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/eisegesis
The parallels are really pretty obvious, but I will lay them out so they become resoundingly obvious to the point of becoming a Reductio ad Absurdum.
Reductio ad Absurdum
"a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable" Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In the graphic below I decided to add some clues that might help you begin piecing together how to balance the use of multiple Exegetic Models side-by-side so you can find the context of every passage in Scripture. It will take a lifetime to get good at balancing these and landing on solid ground; I doubt anyone will perfect it before they pass from this life, but let's be honest - we need all the help we can get to be Biblically accurate and not "miss it".
Using multiple Exegetic Models simultaneously we can create a means of keeping ourselves from going off in left field. It can be easy to think we see something supernatural and while it might be, it may not be biblical which means we are then cooperating with the wrong spirit! The church has ALWAYS demonstrated a desire to find the "spiritual application" before understanding the plain text in proper context, how it can be used without hyper-spiritualizing it, or worse - going straight to looking for the "hidden", "secret", or "mystical" meaning. We have to realize the word "mystic" did not mean the same in the early days of Bible translation into English or during the timeframes we have spoken about in this article. Seeking for mysticism now is NOT the same as then, it simply is not*. People who go down that path see a sign in everything that happens, find a godly "meaning" in every breeze of spiritual-sounding doctrine or teaching, and get swayed by labels like Apostolic or Prophetic. I am NOT a Cessationist, but I am not so naive as to think everything labeled as such really is, by a Biblically Sound description.
*to be completely transparent, there were some who were called mystics even in Bible-times who were just as guilty of seeking a hyper-spiritualized experience - but in general as related to Scripture "mystic" did not always refer to this kind of behavior.
It seems to me, that the enemy was using a person of Judaic religious lineage to create a substitute for those in Judaism to have illegal access into the spirit realm that appeared to be legitimate as the perception was it paralleled what Messiah's earlier servants had done to record a means of consistently understanding Scripture in context. This may have given them some sort of "hope" they could also be involved in miracles, signs, and wonders just like Messiah's followers. I admit, however, this is as much a theory as is that of those who want to avoid anything to do with the 4 components of PaRDeS because it is spooky or associated with the occult.
One last note for those who are especially averse to "Sod"... Messiah gave us this hope:
Matthew 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
“I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”
Messiah endorsed Sod, Drash, and Remetz in this one passage by fulfilling the prophecy of Psalm 78:2. Peshat/plain text is clearly a legitimate means of understanding Scripture that needs no endorsement. It's just common sense that the plain text reveals the plain and primary "meaning" of a passage. This creates a lot of problems for Christendom and its Theology because they see Peter's vision in Acts 10 and reject his own interpretation of the vision because they are fixated on the idea that there "must be something deeper because God told Peter to eat the unclean animals 3 times". They conveniently overlook that 3 Gentiles came to the door. Why? Because that is simply not spiritual enough and there has to be something more, something mysterious and deeply supernatural. Many claim it's because God was emphatically ordering Peter to eat. If this is so, Peter failed again, because he did not eat any of the unclean creatures, he refused all 3 times! There are plenty of others, but this one example is glaringly clear, not to mention abundantly prevalent throughout Christendom. It shows how overlooking the plain text to seek a spiritual meaning can and does change the meaning and understanding we have of Scripture as a whole, even when we do so with just a single passage. Which, one last time, is why the opposers of this article will defend their thesis of allowing the enemy to keep the ground he has taken instead of contending for truth in balance and exposing the heretical usage of the principles of PaRDeS as Scripture itself displays. It is easier to just accept par and hope for the best, but it's not our calling to just allow the enemy to gain ground a bit at a time as he erodes biblical principles by stealing and perverting them. I for one will not stand silently by as he does. Putting it directly, I have rarely found YHVH's will in between the lines of the path of least resistance and apathy. His road is usually more like the mountain and we are more like 85-year-old Caleb who said "Give me the mountain" with the intent of conquering it and all from the enemy who oppose us in the process.
Take this information as you wish, but the evidence trail creates a picture in perfect alignment with the methods of the enemy who cannot be a creator or innovator so he must resort to being an imitator.
I don't care if anyone calls it PaRDeS, or the Fourfold Method, the Senses of Scripture, or Tiddlywinks for that matter. Just be honest and forthcoming with the actual origins and stop denying that history and Scripture contain each principle either by use of the word itself in context that matches the usage in the material within this article (which any Hebrew-English Bible will reveal), by principle, or by example.
People like to preach and teach that when there are two extremes in direct opposition to one another, the truth is often found somewhere in the middle. A concept I introduced in my writings many years ago, and only in the last few years have I seen several others begin to grasp and use it. But, very few consistently maintain this position in their exposition.
Perhaps they only came to understand it a little later than me, or perhaps they finally realized I wasn't crazy when they put it to the test using an Exegetic Model like Hermeneutics.
I understand that sometimes we don't realize we are only looking at one extreme, BUT the PROPER use of any Exegetic Model will prevent this. Using more than one will give us boundaries that force us into other directions in our research and create an environment in our work that prevents us from becoming so focused on what we THINK we are seeing that we cannot see the other extreme, or claw our way to the middle ground.
Some would call not understanding things from both extremes "Confirmation Bias", and that is a real thing, but it usually implies intent. I don't believe everyone who is guilty of only seeing one extreme is also guilty of confirmation bias. I do, however, think they can become guilty of this if warned and don't bother to put in the time to examine the other end and see if they are choosing to accept the comfort of the extreme that excited them because they could prove a point better than those they admire had done before them.
You'll note I never said that PaRDeS hasn't been misused, in fact, the opposite. But even prayer can be witchcraft. If I pray a simple prayer "God please help my wife"; it can mean lots of things but my intent and heart posture reveal if it is righteous or unholy. It could mean "bring her into a closer walk with you", it could mean "heal her of ________ disease" or it could be an attempt to get God to change her to match my expectations instead of loving her as she is since I chose her as she is. When prayer becomes a means of manipulation or control, it's Charismatic Witchcraft. A phrase I coined in 2001 after a very manipulative meeting with the matron (some even called her the matriarch) of a massive ministry I was working for and used while preaching all over America and in YouTube videos shortly after that, maybe around 2005 or 2006. Now I have used that phrase all over the globe on 4 of the 7 continents.
None of this changes the actual origins of PaRDeS and none of it gives Lucifer and his minions permission to now stake a claim because of the fear of those who have only chosen to except this extreme.
Stop being afraid, and go to war to reclaim what Lucifer has stolen.
I don't condemn those who choose to keep Hebraic Exegesis at arm's length, but doing so in fear of condemnation or association with evil is counter-biblical. Yes, we are to run from the appearance of evil, but not when that appearance is a facade that was stolen, imitated, and corrupted from YHVH's Kingdom and its precepts or principles.
Shalom my friends. Never be afraid to take back what the enemy stole and force him to repay the 7fold!!
**Since receiving his Master's of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary in 1976, Ray Vander Laan has been actively involved in studying and teaching Jewish culture using the methods of Jewish education. He has continued graduate studies in Jewish Studies in the United States, Israel, Turkey and Egypt. He has been a teacher for 35 years and is an ordained minister with the Christian Reformed Church. He has also authored a book entitled Echoes of His Presence, published by Focus on the Family. Vander Laan founded That the World May Know Ministries in 1998. Ray has taken over 10,000 people with him on his study tours of Israel, Turkey and Egypt.
Ray's preaching and teaching ministry is focused on understanding the Bible in light of the historical and cultural context in which God placed it. This perspective on the Bible highlights God's call for His people to be a transforming influence on their culture. He uses research of the top scholars in the fields of archaeology, history, and Biblical study as tools to explore the Biblical text ever more deeply. His gifts, expertise, and calling are to link that cultural information and the Bible so that its message applies to our lives today in very practical ways.