CABALA AND CHRIST

The Christian Use of Jewish Mysticism Since the Renaissance

by

Dr. William Varner

Professor of Bible and Director of IBEX Program

The Master’s College

its adjoining countries. Meaning “brilliance,” the Zohar was basically a mystical

commentary on the Torah attributed to the second century rabbi, Shimon bar Yochai.

Late research has demonstrated conclusively that the real author was a contemporary

Spanish rabbi named Moses de Leon.1 The philosophical theology of the Zohar formed a

decisive stage in the development of the Jewish form of mystical speculation known as

the “Cabala.”

From the emergence of the Zohar to the rise of the “Haskala” (the Jewish

Enlightenment) over four hundred years later, the Cabala was the most influential molder

of Jewish thought. Although never espoused by all and always opposed by some, this

mystical theosophy attempting to explain the true relationship between God and creation

influenced the mind of every Jewish person. It can be safely stated that during the period

following the Spanish expulsion in 1492, the Zohar ranked next to the Bible and the

Talmud in its spiritual authority in the Jewish community.

Furthermore, Jewish mystical writings did not escape the notice of non-Jewish

thinkers. Many Christian theologians did ridicule the Cabala as occultic and fanciful.

At the end of the fifteenth century, however, a movement began to develop in certain

Renaissance “Christian” circles that sought to harmonize the doctrines of the Cabala with

Christianity. These writers attempted to show that the true meaning of Cabalistic

mysticism served to teach Christian doctrines!

1
Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken
Books, 1961), 156-204.

2
 The two-fold purpose of this article is to explain the main points of the Christian

interpretation of the Cabala and to examine its influence in some modern circles of

evangelical thought.

Renaissance Cabalists

All attempts to discover a Christian interpretation of Cabala before the late

fifteenth century have failed. All agree that the founder of this approach was the

Florentine prodigy Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-94). Pico evidently had a

portion of Cabalistic literature translated into Latin for him by the convert Samuel ben

Nissim Abulfaraj, later known as Flavius Mithridates. The major source for Pico’s

Cabalistic conclusions was the Bible commentary by Menachem Recanati. Recanati’s

commentary was basically a watered-down version of the Zohar, which itself is styled as

a commentary on the Pentateuch.

In 1486 Pico displayed 900 theses for public debate in Rome. Included among

these were 47 propositions taken directly from Cabalistic sources plus 72 more

propositions that represented his own conclusions from his Cabalistic research. Pico

himself announced that his work was “derived from the fundamental ideas of the Hebrew

sages, greatly strengthening the Christian religion.”2 The theses contained the daring

claim that “no science can better convince us of the divinity of Jesus Christ than magic

and Cabala.”3 Pico, therefore, claimed that he could prove the dogmas of the Trinity and

the Incarnation on the basis of Cabalistic axioms. This sudden discovery of a “secret

2
Joseph Leon Blau, The Christian Interpretation of the Cabala in the
Renaissance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), 20.
3
Ibid.

3
tradition” hitherto unknown caused a sensation in the Christian intellectual world and

aroused the fierce opposition of ecclesiastical authorities. To defend himself Pico

composed his Apologia, dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici. This was not sufficient for the

authorities, and he was declared guilty of heresy, but was cleared after a special appeal

had gained the pardon of the pope.

Although Pico is always discussed as the founder of “Christian Cabala”, an

examination of his “conclusions” reveals a rather incoherent and unsystematic approach

to his subject. He does not enter into a discussion of the precise schematization of the

sefirot he equates single terms from one system to another (e.g. “night” in the Orphic

system is equated with En Soph in Cabala), and his suggestions regarding number

symbolism are inconsistent and haphazard. It was left to Pico’s successors to clarify and

systematize his original suggestions.

John Reuchlin (1455-1522) is known in Jewish and Christian history for his

eloquent defense of Hebrew literature against Pfefforkorn and the Dominicans. To

Reuchlin himself, however, these contributions were phases of his interest in the Cabala.

Although he cited Pico as his inspiration, the Jewish cabalist Joseph Gikatilla (Shaare

Orah) was the source for his knowledge of Cabala. Reuchlin’s two works De Arte

Cabalistica (“On the Art of Cabala,” 1517), reveal a well thought out theoretical

approach building on and extending Pico’s scattered ideas. Reuchlin’s main contribution

was a series of bold speculations on the names of God which “proved” or illustrated the

Incarnation. Human history, Reuchlin argued, could be divided into three periods. In the

first, a natural period, God revealed Himself to the Patriarchs through the three-lettered

name of Shaddai ( ydv ). In the period of the Torah He revealed Himself to Moses

4
through the four-lettered name of the Tetragrammaton (hwhy ). In the period of

redemption He revealed Himself through five letters, i.e. the Tetragrammaton with the

addition of the letter shin, thus spelling Yehoshuah (hvwhy ) or Jesus. Thus Reuchlin’s

arrangement was able to combine the Jewish belief in three ages (Chaos, Torah, and

Messiah) with the tripartite Christian division of a reign of the Father, a reign of the Son,

and a reign of the Holy Spirit. Whatever be the merits of Reuchlin’s interpretations, from

his time no Christian writer who touched on Cabalism did so without using him as a

source. “That the Christian Cabala was at all respectable is attributable to the respect in

which Reuchlin’s work was held.”4

During the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries a wave of conversions to

Christianity induced by Cabala took place among the Jews. Certainly the most

distinguished of these Cabalistic converts was Paul Ricci, who after his conversion

became physician to Maximilian I and professor of Greek and Hebrew in the University

of Pavia in 1521. His main work was the lengthy dialogue De Coelesti Agricultara in

four books, and he also produced a translation of Gikatilla’s Shaare Orah. Ricci unified

the scattered dogmas of the Christian Cabala into an internally consistent system.

Elaborate exegetical devices, however, as well as number and letter permutations do not

appear in his work. Ricci’s system proceeded from Adam’s original innocence and

knowledge of all ten sefirot, through the Fall and its consequence, the loss of knowledge

of the three highest sefirot, to the conversion and redemption of man at the second advent

of Jesus. The Christian interpretation of Cabala reached its apex of theological

sophistication in the writings of Ricci.

4
Blau, 60.

5
 Although there were many other Christian writers on Cabala down to the

eighteenth century, these three “founders” laid the basis for all later Christological

speculation on the Cabala.

IDEAS AND METHODS

All discussions about the relationship between God and man center around the

tensions created by the doctrines of God’s transcendence and/or imminence. Isaiah’s

conception of the Deity combines both truths in a graphic way: “For thus says the high

and exalted One Who lives forever, whose name is Holy, "I dwell on a high and holy

place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit In order to revive the spirit of the

lowly And to revive the heart of the contrite.” (Isa. 57:15, NASB). The question of

whether God is very distant from man (transcendence) or very close to man (immanence)

is answered by Isaiah in stating that the lofty God is close to the meek. Therefore, the

Old Testament notion is clearly one of immanence. However, under the influence of

Alexandria (Hellenistic Judaism) the notion of transcendence clearly came to the fore.

The conflict between a transcendent and immanent God demanded a resolution. An

emanation doctrine seemed to provide a way to escape the horns of the dilemma. Philo

was a well-known exponent of one type of emanation doctrine. The sefirot of Cabalism

provided another. The sefirot reveal God to the earnest seeker through gradually more

exalted attributes, but they also are intermediaries by means of which God’s intervention

in human affairs took place. Therefore, the transcendent conception of deity held by

Jewish Cabalists made it easier for them to accept the view of God presented in the New

6
Testament. It was not difficult to substitute Christ for the sefirot as a means of explaining

God’s nature.

But how exactly did Christ fit into the sefirot scheme? The ten sefirot were

divided into an upper three, and a lower seven. The upper three are the most closely

associated with En Sof, the ineffable God. The lower seven are most closely associated

with the lower creation, i.e., the world of asiah. The first sefira, the one at the top of the

schematic tree of the sefirot, was Keter, “crown.” This was the Father. Ricci also

associated the name of God, Ehyeh (“I am”) with this sefira. The second, chochmah

(“wisdom”) was associated with the Son, the second person of the trinity. Ricci also

associated the divine name Yah ( hy) with this sefira. The masculine sefirot on this side

of the schema also served to underscore the identification of chochmah as the Son. The

third sefira, binah (“understanding”), corresponded to the Spirit of God. Ricci associated

elohim with this sefira and emphasized the feminine characteristics of this side of the

schema. Thus, the upper three form a triad answering to the Holy Trinity. This use of the

upper triad of the sefirotic tree to teach the Trinity was a common denominator among all

Christian interpreters of the Cabala.

Another exegetical method employed by the Christian Cabalists was gematria.

Since it was believed that Hebrew was the original language, then there must have been

imbedded within the very letters of the language certain divine messages for the readers.

One of the Cabalistic books familiar to Pico, et. al. was the Sefer Yetsirah (“Book of

Formation”). At its very beginning Sefer Yetsirah presents a theory of creation in which

the letters play an active part. “By means of thirty-two mysterious paths of wisdom (i.e.,

the twenty two letters plus the ten sefirot) did the Lord of hosts ordain to create His

7
Universe. The twenty two fundamental letters God appointed, established, combined,

weighed, and changed, and through them He formed all things existent and destined to

exist.”5 The term gematria was used in the Middle Ages to describe all the practices of

numerical equivalencies, transformations, and permutations involving the Hebrew letters.

In later times three terms developed to describe three different kinds of numerical

methods. Gematria is the process of creating equivalencies from the numerical values of

words. It is based on the fact that many ancient languages used the letters of the alphabet

to also represent numbers. Notarikon is an acrostic system. The initial or final letters of

the words in a phrase are joined to form a word which is then given occult significance.

Themurah consists of transposing the letters of a word, or replacing them with artificial

equivalents obtained from one or another of a group of anagrams.

An example of how gematria was employed to affirm Christian doctrine is given

by Reuchlin in his work On the Art of Cabala. The divine name YHVH (hwhy ) was

constantly experimented with to produce all kinds of secret “truths.” When the letters of

the name are spelled out the total is forty-two: yud (10, 6, 4), h (5), vv (6,6) h (5). From

this flows the forty two letter name. Ab Elohim Ben Elohim Ruach Hakadosh Elohim

Shelosha Beachad Achad Beshelosha, that is, “The Father is God, the Son is God, the

Holy Spirit is God; Three in One and One in Three.” 6

5
John Warwick Montgomery, Principalities and Powers (Minneapolis: Bethany
Fellowship, 1973), 79.
6
Cited by Blau, 67.

8
 Another of Reuchlin’s “evidences” of the Trinity is in the very first verse of the

Bible. If each of the three letters composing the word “created” (arb) be examined, and

each is taken as the initial of a separate word, there results the expression ba jwr /b

“Son, Spirit, Father.” Furthermore, the word “stone” (ba) in Psalm 118:22 can be

divided into (/b ba) “Father, Son.” 7 It is easy to conclude that almost any doctrine can

be “proven” or “illustrated” when such methodology is employed. Such “proofs” of the

Messiahship of Jesus bring no honor to Christianity and reflect badly both against him

who uses them and against him convinced by them.

In addition to the parallels from the sefirot and the use of gematria, one other

“evangelistic” method has been utilized by Christian interpreters of the Cabala 

statements in the Zohar that seemingly imply trinitariansim. Although Pico and the other

founders did not utilize these statements (due to their unfamiliarity with the text of the

Zohar), the following passages are some which have been cited as clearly conveying that

Jewish Cabalists affirmed the concept of plurality within the Godhead.

In commenting on the repetition of the Divine names YHVH, Elohenu, and

YHVH in Deuteronomy 6:4, the Zoharic author asks, “How can the three Names be one?

Only through the perception of faith: in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of

the hidden eyes alone. The mystery of the audible voice is similar to this, for though it is

one yet it consists of three elements  firs, air, and water, which have, however, become

one in the mystery of the voice. Even so it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine

7
Cited by Christian David Ginsburg, The Kaballah (New York: Macmillan Co,
1956), 144.

9
manifestations designated by YHVH Elohenu YHVH  three modes which yet form one

unity.” 8

After citing this and other Zoharic passages identifying the suffering servant of

Isaiah 53 with the Messiah, C. D. Ginsburg comments, “That these opinions favor, to a

certain extent, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Atonement, though not in the orthodox

sense, is not only admitted by many of the Jewish literati who are adverse to the

Kabbalah, but by some of its friends. Indeed, the very fact that so large a number of

Kabbalists have from time to time embraced the Christian faith would of itself show that

there must be some sort of affinity between the tenets of the respective systems.” 9 That

an affinity existed between the theosophical beliefs of medieval cabalists and Christianity

cannot be reasonably doubted  that it was the intention of the cabalists that the affinity

justified Trinitarian views is another matter altogether.

Christian Cabalists Today?

Cabala does not command the allegiance of the majority of Jews today, being

confined mainly to the Hasidim. Has a remnant likewise of “Christian Cabalists”

survived to the present? One looks in vain for a Christian interpreter who attempts to

find evidence of the Trinity in the upper triad of the sefirotic schema, as was the custom

of Pico and his successors. However, familiar Cabalistic hermeneutical methodology is

still employed among some evangelical writers.

8
Zohar, II, 43b.
9
Ginsburg, 142, 143.

10
 At the turn of the century an Anglican clergyman named E. W. Bullinger

produced some voluminous writings that have influenced many even until today. His

book Number in Scripture is a thorough discussion of the spiritual significance of

numbers throughout the Bible. Although containing some very useful material about the

symbolic character of certain numbers as 3, 7, and 40, Bullinger lists over fifty numbers

that convey hidden spiritual truth to the reader! Bullinger, however, seeks to even

establish authorship by. Consider the following argument for the Pauline authorship of

Hebrews, “The New Testament contains 27 separate books (3 x 3 x 3 or 33). Of these 27

books, 21 (3 x 7) are Epistles. Of the 21 Epistles of the New Testament 14 (2 x 7) are by

Paul, and seven by other writers. In this we have an argument for the Pauline authorship

of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Without it the Epistles of St. Paul are only thirteen in

number, with it they are 14 (2 x 7).” 10 Furthermore, Bullinger simply could not

comprehend how Paul could write thirteen epistles because it was a number associated

with evil. “As to the significance of thirteen, all are aware that it has come down to us as

a number of ill-omen. Many superstitions cluster around it, and various explanations are

current concerning them. Unfortunately, those who go backwards to find a reason

seldom go back far enough. The popular explanations do not, so far as we are aware, go

further back than the Apostles. But we must go back to the first occurrence of the

number thirteen in order to discover the key to its significance. It occurs first in Gen. xiv.

4, where we read ‘Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and the thirteenth year they

REBELLED.’ Hence every occurrence of the number thirteen, and likewise of every

10
E. W. Bullinger, Number in Scripture (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishers, 1969
reprint), 26, 41.

11
multiple of it, stamps that with which it stands in connection with rebellion, apostasy,

defection, corruption, disintegration, revolution, or some kindred idea.” 11

Another writer on “numerics” popular among some evangelicals is Ivan Panin.

Panin’s elaborate system of “Bible Numerics” actually attempted to establish the true text

of the New Testament. 12

The real problem with this and all methods of gematria is that one receives from

their use just what he puts into them. The possible number of permutations is endless,

particularly when numerical totals are divided into factors! For example, consider

Panin’s treatment of Genesis 1:1, “The numeric value of the first word of this verse is

913; of the last 296; of the middle, the fourth word, 401; the numeric value of the first,

middle and last words is thus 1610, or 230 sevens (Feature 7); the numeric value of the

first, middle, and last letters of the 28 letters of this verse is 133, or 19 sevens (Feature 8).

If now the first and last letters of each of the seven words in this verse have their numeric

value placed against them, we have for their numeric value 1383, or 199 sevens.” 13

When number totals are factored almost anything can be proven (and also omitted!).

After careful consideration of the gematria techniques employed by a number of

writers, John Davis provides the following excellent evaluation.

“The thing that is of special interest, however, is the gross silence in works of the
above men concerning the origin of their exegetical systems. No credit is ever
given to Pythagoras the Talmudic or Cabalistic literature from which their
methodology is derived. In fact, as one reads their works, he is constantly
reminded of the fact that what they are proposing is new and unique. No man

11
Bullinger, 205.
12
Montgomery, 91, 92.
13
Cited by John Davis, Biblical Numerology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1968), 141.

12
 ever saw it until they brought it to light.” 14”There is no objective basis for
controlling this methodology. The interpreter selects his words, and the
combinations of numbers that he wishes. In other words 7 might have several
combinations (6 + 1, 5 + 2, 4+ 3). How do we know which of these combinations
the author intended to bear symbolic implications? This whole system is based on
a false premise. There is no proof that the Hebrews of the Old Testament used
their alphabet in this manner (i.e., in Gematria). As was pointed out earlier, the
Moabite Stone and the Siloam Inscription have their numbers written out. This is
the case in all the Old Testament. If we should grant that the Hebrews did use
their alphabet in this manner, it has yet to be proven that these two factors (i.e.,
Gematria and Number Symbolism) are combined in Scripture.” 15

In addition to bequeathing to modern heirs the gematria technique, the

Renaissance Cabalists also left the example of citing Cabalistic writings to illustrate the

teaching of a plurality in the Godhead. The most recent work in this vein is one entitled

The Great Mystery, or, How Can Three Be One? by Rabbi Tzvi Nassi (Hirsch Prinz),

who is listed on the book cover and title page as “Lecturer in Hebrew” at Oxford

University. 16

The purpose of the volume is clearly delineated in the preface.

“The humble object of this little book is to prove that our sages of blessed
memory, long before the Christian era, held that there was a plurality in the
Godhead. Indeed, this teaching was held for yet 100 years after the destruction of
the second temple, and, as it was contained and declared in the Holy Scriptures, it
was also set forth in our most ancient books, as the reader will see from
quotations given in these pages.” 17

14
Davis, 133.
15
Davis, 148, 149. Another recent literary effort in this area was the popular
book on prophecy, 1994, by Harold Camping. Camping concluded by elaborate and
detailed calculations that Jesus would come in September, 1994. Most of his
methodology involved extensive use of gematria in arriving at his conclusions.
16
Tzvi Nassi, The Great Mystery (Jerusalem: Yanetz Ltd., 1970).
17
Nassi, ii.

13
 The book is written as a first person description of the spiritual search of one

“Nathanael” in the volumes of his father’s library. Nathanael’s method is to examine the

passages in Scripture which seem to him to teach the plurality of persons in the God

head. Much of the book, however, is given over to supportive quotations from the Zohar

and the Sepher Yetsirah. Nathanael (i.e. Nassi) apparently accepts without questioning

the traditional authorship of the Zohar by Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai, a second century

Palestinian sage. 18 Modern Jewish scholars, however, are in full agreement that the

Zohar was essentially the creation of Moses de Leon in the late thirteenth century.19 The

author’s evaluation of the Zohar as being of the highest authority for Jewish belief would

be seriously challenged by most Jewish scholars today. “[the Zohar] is considered

among my nation to be of the highest authority in things pertaining to the knowledge of

the nature and essence of God.” 20

Although Nassi does not accept the traditional Abrahamic authorship of Sepher

Yetsirah, he does say, “The book has great authority in the synagogue. It is probable that

it may have been written shortly before or soon after the Babylonian captivity. Though

this hypothesis may be disputed, at any rate it existed before the Christian era.” 21 No

18
Nassi, 5.
19
See footnote #1.
20
Nassi, 5. A popular tale told by many preachers is that “according to Jewish
tradition” a rope was tied around the High Priest’s ankle on Yom Kippur in case he died
inside the Holy of Holies. It is common knowledge that such a practice is not found in
the Leviticus, but it is also not found in any ancient Jewish and rabbinic literature,
including Second Temple writings, the Mishna, Gemara, Targums, and Midrashim. The
first time it appeared in print is in this thirteenth century document, the Zohar.
21
Nassi, 6.

14
Jewish scholar would accept this dating today. The general opinion is that Sepher

Yetsirah was composed no earlier than the 6th century C. E. 22

Nassi does cite some very interesting quotations from these Cabalistic works that

do appear to advocate a plurality in the Godhead. His discussion of the Memra

( armym) or “Word of the Lord” and the Divine attributes associated with it and his

explanation of the Metatron ( /wrffm), the exalted being often spoken of in divine

terms, raise important subjects that need to be further explored in the Jewish-Christian

dialogue.23 His heavy dependence, however, on works of Cabala in an uncritical fashion

lessons the force of his arguments even for the modern orthodox Jew to whom these

works carry even less authority than other medieval Jewish writings. The force of the

Christian argument rises and falls on the exegesis of Scripture, not on finding Jewish

writings that appear to support the Christian position. 24

CONCLUSION

The Jewish-Christian discussion will continue to be a lively debate in the future.

It is the author’s firm contention, however, that it should be carried on apart from any

Cabalistic frame of relevance. For the Christian theologian and apologist, the emanation

doctrine of Cabala should not be considered in any form as a valid doctrinal view. Its

22
Scholem, 75.
23
Nassi, 30-44; 60-68. For a thorough discussion of the Memra and the
Metatron, see George Foot Moore, “Intermediaries in Jewish Theology,” Harvard
Theological Review (January, 1922), 42-85.
24
Further critical evaluation of Cabalistic metaphysics can be found in
Montgomery, 87-95.

15
truth simply cannot be attested by Scripture, either that of the Old or New Testaments 

the only reliable means by which such a concept can be verified. In the Cabalistic theory

of sefirot, there is far more similarity to the metaphysical world of Gnosticism than to the

biblical world view. The Bible not only never mentions the sefirot, but there are passages

which clearly contradict the idea that a series of emanations exist between God and man.

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).
Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and
the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without
cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire
body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a
growth which is from God. (Colossians 2:18-19; NASB).

Since the New Testament deals with some very metaphysical matters in its

discussion of God, it would be strange indeed if the emanation doctrine would be entirely

omitted if it was the world view of its authors. The sefirot doctrine is unnecessary for the

Christian. The incarnate Son responded to Philip’s request to be shown the Father in this

unequivocal way, leaving no room for competing mediatorial beings or spheres:

Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to
know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say,
'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is
in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the
Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the
Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.”
(John 14:9-11; NASB).

The attempts by some Renaissance scholars to give a Christian interpretation to

the Cabala arose from different motives  some were seeking to establish a true

understanding of reality (Pico), while others were seeking to convert Jewish people to a

Christianity that would have more affinity with their background (Ricci). Although their

motives may have been sincere, their hermeneutical methodology was so defective that

16
more harm than good was done in its implementation. Their writings serve to warn us

today about how not to conduct the Jewish-Christian discussion. Furthermore, their

questionable borrowing of such Cabalistic techniques as gematria should serve as a

serious warning to modern evangelical teachers to beware of straying from a basic, even

when nuanced, grammatical-historical hermeneutic.

17