VISIONS OF GOD IN MERKABAH MYSTICISM
BY
IRA CHERNUS Universityof Colorado,Boulder
I
The recent publication of Ithamar GRUENWALD'S Apocalyptic and Merkabah Mysticism is an important event for those of us interested in Jewish mysticism and esotericism during the rabbinic era. The book will surely be a basic point of reference for future studies in this area, as it provides the most comprehensive discussion yet available of all the Heikalot texts and their background. Therefore it is important to look closely at GRUENWALD'S judgments about the nature of Merkabah mysticism as we try to gain a more precise understanding of this enigmatic phenomenon. One statement in the book which may occasion surprise comes in a discussion of the controversy among the tannaim as to whether it is possible to see God'). GRUENWALD shows here that there is signifi- cant negative opinion on this question in the rabbinic literature, and he claims in particular that R. Akiba, so closely associated with mystical concerns, denies the possibility of human beings seeing God. Supporting this interpretation, GRUENWALD claims, rather in passing: As a matter of fact, the idea that the mystics and the angels cannot see God is also stressed several times in the Hekhalot literature. Despite the daring modes of expression one can find in that literature about the contents of mystical experience, the possibility of a direct visual encounter with God is generally ruled out. The mystics whose ex- periences are described in the Hekhalot literature, expect to see "the King in (all) His beauty", but when it comes to a face to face meeting with God, one repeatedly hears of what is and should be done in order to avoid the experience2).
1) Ithamar GRUENWALD,Apocalyptic and MerkavahMysticism (Leiden/Köln: E. J. Brill, 1980), pp. 93-97. 2) Ibid., p. 94. 124
This assertion, coming from an acknowledged authority, raises some important questions. Our understanding of Merkabah mysticism will be significantly different, I think, if we accept GRUENWALD'S view than if we reject it. For if the Merkabah mystics did think it possible to see God, it seems likely that this vision would be the central concern and motivating force of their endeavors. In fact, Gershom SCHOLEM has already written that "the main pur- pose of the ascent to the Merkabah is the vision of the One Who sits on the Throne"3). If SCHOLEM is correct, then his view ought to be a foundational element in any overall interpretation of Merkabah mysticism. Moreover, we would also like to know whether rabbinic Judaism in general included a "visible" God or not. If GRUEN- WALD'S view can be shown correct, then his general impression that rabbinic Judaism denied the "visibility" of God would be more probable; if the Merkabah mystics thought it impossible to see God, it is hardly likely that their non-mystical contemporaries held the opposite view. Thus the whole question seems worth further investigation. Before examining the Heikalot texts themselves in detail, a brief sketch of some earlier Jewish views on this subject may be useful. GRUENWALD himself indicates that all of the basic elements of Merkabah mysticism are already found in the visions of God reported in the Bible: 1 Kings 22:19, Isaiah 6:1 ff., Ezekiel 1, 3:22-24, 8:1 ff., 10, and Daniel 7:9-10. Listing the essential characteristics that these visions have in common, he notes that in all of them God is sitting on a throne, and that in two (Ezekiel and Daniel) God has the appearance of a man4). In fact, it seems likely that nearly all manifestations of God in the Biblical era were assumed to be anthropomorphic manifestations. Discussing "Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament," James BARR says: There is adequate evidence for a strong tradition in early Israel that Yahweh let himself be seen at times in the form of a man ... The most important question which remains is perhaps better phrased thus: not 3) Gershom SCHOLEM,Kabbalah (New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., 1974), p. 16. A similar conclusion, from a different and very interesting point of view, is reached by S. LEITERin "Worthiness, Acclamation, and Appoint- ment: Some Rabbinic Terms," Proceedingsof theAmerican Academy for JewishResearch XLI-XLII (1973-1974). 4) GRUENWALD,Apocalyptic, pp. 29-31. (Note that p. 31 erroneously refers to 2 Kings rather than 1 Kings.)