Jovial (15 March 2015)
"What is the SHEKINAH?"

The word "Shekinah" is often pronounced wrong and understood wrong in Christian English, and when Christians read what Jews have written about it they misunderstand what is being said due to their own misunderstanding of the word, which seems to be the case in re the post at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/mar2015/kml38.htm.

PRONUNCIATION: The Hebrew word "שכנה" is pronounced She-Kee-NAH (accent/stress on LAST syllable) not She-KI-nah (accent on second syllable).  It has a long English E/ee sound in the second syllable, not a long English I/eye sound.

MEANING: Shekinah means "presence" not "glory".  So the next time you hear someone misuse the phrase "Shekinah glory of God", what they actually SHOULD have said was "glory of the shekinah (presence) of God".

UNDERSTANDING: "Shekinah" is not viewed as a woman or in any kind of personal form, as was incorrectly alleged at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/mar2015/kml38.htm .  The Zohar does not teach that the "Shekinah" is a woman or a person.  It DOES promote a female understanding of the Holy Spirit, and because many Christians associate the Holy Spirit as the omnipresent aspect of God, they also associate the shekinah (presence) with the Holy Spirit.  To a certain extent this is true, but the Jewish concept of the SHEKINAH of God is far more complex than this.

The Zohar teaches that the 3 "pillars" (what we would call "persons") of God each have a upper and lower presence.  It teaches that the Son has an upper shekinah (presence) and a lower shekinah (presence).  This theory might explain what would otherwise seem like a conflict between two passages of Scripture, one of which says that He will remain seated at the right hand of God until the second coming, and another in which He said, "For where 2 or 3 are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt 18:20).  Christians see this as a conflict or sometimes explain it as being there through His Spirit, but the Zoharic concept of the Shekinah would apply to this and say that His upper shekinah (presence) would remain at the right hand and His lower shekinah (presence) would be present without any need to spiritualize this verse or claim that He is there through ANOTHER PERSON of the Godhead. That is not to say the Holy Spirit WOULD NOT be there as well - just that if one accepts the Zoharic explaination of what the shekinah is, it resolves what some would consider a conflict as to the presence of the Son.

The Zohar teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each separately have an upper shekinah (presence) and a lower shekinah (presence), and sees the Holy Spirit as embodying the upper shekinah of the Godhead in general.

KML said, "Why then would any of us having Jesus as our Master and High Priest even consider the teachings of RABBI SHIMON BAR YOCHAI, author of the Zohar? Shameful...it is, when professed Christians should refer to God's Glory as Shekinah" (http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/mar2015/kml38.htm)

Well, it is not shameful to use the word "shekinah" just because it appears in the Zohar.  The word "shekinah" is used in the Bible.  Is it wrong to use a word that Bible uses?  Not as long as you are using it correctly, although using the term shekinah (presence) to mean "glory" is incorrect.  And while KML is technically right when he says, "NO Shekinah is mentioned in the Word of God, as being Gods' Glory", the word "shekinah" is still found in scripture in numerous places, but correctly used to mean "presence".  Sometimes the root verb (שכן) is used to mean "be present" or "dwell".  and the Hebrew word MISHKAN, meaning "dwelling place" or place of His presence is used to refer to the temple.  So MISHKAN is a word built from the same root.

Neither is a concept automatically wrong just because a "rabbi" somewhere taught it who rejected the Messiah.  All Orthodox rabbis teach God is all powerful.  Shall we reject that idea just because it is taught by someone who rejects the Messiah? Also, if KML has a problem with what Michaelangelo painted, he should take that up with Michaelangelo, and not blame a Jewish writer from before Michaelangelo's time. Yet in his post, KML attacks Jews and the Zohar for what Michaelangelo painted and claims Jews are guilty of "LASCIVIOUSNESS" because Michaelangelo painted what Michaelangelo might have considered God's female daughter angel.  Where's the logic in that?

So in summary

And falsely accusing Jews of believing something they don't believe is a serious sin.  And if you are going to make an allegation about what is in the Zohar, at least READ IT FIRST!  And QUOTE FROM IT to prove your point.  Did we not just learn a lesson from the Newton debate where those who did not read or quote from Newton's writings alleged he said something he did not say?

Shalom,

Joe