Notes by JBY:

1.  The text was taken (except as noted) from Book V.  
     Page Numbers given below refer this book. 
     The translation and commentary are by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (unless noted). 
     Rabbi Hirsch's commentaries are replete with Hebrew-language's insights. 
     For Bible-study, Strong, Gesenius, and BibleWorks are indispensable.  

2. Format for R. Hirsch's Translations: 

HirPsalm:92:7; pg.155.        Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view.       Scriptural Interpretation.

            A brutish man knoweth not,                        {translation from Jewish Publication Society, 1917 edition}
            Neither doth a fool understand this.
         A man bare of reason does not understand,    {translation by R. Hirsch}
      nor does a conceited fool comprehend this:  

           Followed by Rabbi Hirsch's commentary which I have abbreviated and heavily edited for          people who do not know Hebrew.

           R. Hirsch's translations vary from the JPS translations in his own inimitable style. 


3. Symbols:

"Striving - SG838"  =  Hebrew word translated - Strong and Gesenius Number, if given.
[Commentary by Rabbi Hirsch ],                     { ^ Numbers may also be found in BibleWorks.}
< Dr. A. Wolf's commentary from Book XXIII or Book XXII > 
{ Commentary by Joseph B. Yesselman } 

4. Three Stages in the Evolution of the Concept of G-D:
         I have made the following changes, throughout all my web pages (not consistently), in 
         the spellings of God to reflect, in my opinion, the three stages of this evolution: 
         1. god(s) — Polytheistic; Pagan, Idolatry, Myth. Einstein on these three stages—Paradigm Shifts.
         2. God— Monotheistic; Judaeo-Christian-Islamic, Anthropomorphic, Transcendent God.  
             Durant:637, Re-interpret all anthropomorphisms in accordance with TTP1:3:13—Schweizer:79, James Hall:21. 
         3. G-D or G-d— Monotheistic; Spinoza's Immanent, Indwelling G-D/Nature. 
             ^ spelling ^ not consistently.           Analogies, James Hall:51, Weinphal:49, Durant:636, Dawkins:307.
            'G-D', Being, and 'Nature' are interchangeable. Deus sive Natura. Term G-D.     Spinoza's Religion
            'G-d', being, and 'nature' are interchangeable. Mode. Spinoza's Pantheism. D2:Spinozistic Meaning
          I use the words 'G-D', 'Thou' - 'thee', 'Deus', and 'Nature' interchangeably.

The above stages show the constant evolution of Religion's hypotheses. G-D is a synthesis of god(s) and God. See Dialectics, and Theistic and Non-theistic world views synthesized. Overcome. Memes.
The evolving concept of God results in the re-interpretation of Holidays—Paradigm Shifts.  

From Mook and Vargish Inside Relativity; 0691025207; p. 22. 

Scientific {and Religious} models change or evolve with time. This corresponds to the fact that they are transitory in usefulness and prestige. The change is sometimes characterized by a minor modification of a preexisting model to widen its domain of validity; sometimes a model is substantially altered or even completely replaced. ... In general, the models used and taught most widely today are not those used in the remote past, and they probably will not continue to be used indefinitely into the future. But we do sometimes live with a plurality of working models in that older models (such as the geocentric {gods and God} models) may continue to be used within their limited domains, even after better models are available. Albert Einstein put it this way: "Every theory is killed sooner or later. . . . But if the theory has good in it, that good is embodied and continued in the next theory." We would add that sometimes the intellectually "killed" model {God} sustains a {un}limited prestige as it co-exists with the newer ideas.  

From Richard Dawkins' A Devil's Chaplain 2003; 0618335404; p. 150. 

... modern theists might acknowledge that, when it come to Baal and the Golden Calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.  

Paradoxically, Spinoza's G-D has much in common with the Pagan gods. Spinoza treats all things as Holy and as organically interdependent (analogy); whereas the Pagan treats things as independent separates—standing alone. The cash value of Spinoza's hypothesis of 'G-D' is that it establishes the logic for the Golden Rule and it synthesizes theistic and non-theistic world views.  

Conjecture: Spinozism is Evolved Judaism; law libraries of the world merge into the Talmud.

5.  Make my following emendations throughtout the Work: 
          soul                   change to            mind, thought, or life. 
         
 
6.   Partake of the Work (and my comments) as you would a pomegranate—relish 
      the flesh and spit-out the pits—things out-of-date; things you disagree with; and 
      things incomprehensible.  

     The ideas that I express may not be explicit in Spinoza's Works or in Rabbi Hirsch's Works ,      but are (in my opinion) implicit in their general principles. 

7.  Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view is a transcendent, anthropomorphic {ascribing human form or        attributes to a thing or a being not human, as to a deity} God, which leads R. Hirsch to take man's       point-of-view of things. But if you re-interpret to an indwelling, immanent G-D, it gives the       same end results except when the former lapses into idolatry. The latter, immanent,      G-D, makes many scriptural passages literally true instead of allegorical (the representation of        spiritual, moral, or other abstract meanings through the actions of fictional characters that serve as symbols). 
    Get behind the anthropomorphisms and find Deus sive Natura  {Example+1+2.} 
      
     See Book XXI, Kenneth R. Miller "Finding Darwin's God".

8.  In studying Scripture always remember that the purpose of "Religion" is 
     to bring peace-of-mind; not teach philosophy, nor to make men learned.      TTP1:Prf:42

9. Definitions: 

Torah - The entire body of Jewish religious literature, law, and teaching       Britannica
             as contained chiefly in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. 
              {I use 'Torah' in the Spinozistic sense of what is sacred in 
              Scriptures, Talmud and what is implied in the posit of G-D. 
                 Ges:860; Strong:8451 (from yaw-raw' to teach); instruction,
              doctrine, law.}   

Talmud - The collection of Jewish law and tradition.                                 Talmud and Miracles 

Mishnah - The collection of oral laws compiled about A.D. 200 and forming the basic part
                 of the Talmud. 

Halakhah - the body of Jewish law, comprising the oral law as transcribed in the Talmud                   and subsequent legal codes and rabbinical decisions. 

Shulhan Arukh - an authoritative code of Jewish law and custom published in 1565. 

Religion is an hypothesis for peace-of-mind. See Mark Twain's "Little Story." 

Idolatry is taking the infinite as finite. 

Divine = G-D, Deus sive Natura.  Divine Law. 

{Very important for the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures are TTPI:I(15) and TTPI:CI(65).}

10.  Suggestion: 

Analyze (English, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) Scriptural
words carefully.    Use  Books  IV,  V, VI, and  IX.    Hermeneutika  is 
powerful—point  to  an English word in the King James version and 
its  Hebrew,  Greek or  Latin   word  and  Strong's   entry  are  given.          powerful.
For  English,  use [etymological] and thesaurus entries; I have found 
all of this to trigger many an insight. 

11.  Suggested Web Sites for Sacred Bible Texts:
       http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/index.htm 
       http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm 
     http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/index.htm#index 
       http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl 
     A CD of the Sacred Texts of all Faiths is available.
  
  

Preface

As I kept studying Spinoza, what Elwes thought happened to Spinoza,
happened to me. 

From "Elwes's Introduction to his Translations of Spinoza's Works".

[37] The biography of the philosopher supplies us in some 
sort  with  the  genesis  of his system. His youth had been 
passed  in  the study of Hebrew learning, of metaphysical 
speculations  on the nature of the Deity. He was then con- 
fronted  with the scientific aspect of the world as revealed 
by Descartes. At first the two visions seemed antagonistic, 
but,  as he gazed, their outlines blended and commingled,            synthesized
he  found  himself in the presence not of two, but of ONE; 
the universe unfolded itself to him as the necessary result 
of the Perfect and Eternal G-D.  

This "unfolding itself" was to me an infinite "organic interdependence of 
parts" which led directly to the "Golden Rule";  not out of altruism but of 
enlightened self-interest.   

Now, after some fifty-six years, I am still studying Spinoza and Scripture
and gaining ever-new insights.  

Study Spinoza's "A THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE" - especially 1:66 and Ch. 7.

Spinoza's Religion  

JBY Glossary definition is:  
Religion is an ever-evolving hypothesis designed (posited) 
to find PEACE-OF-MIND (PcM).    

From Glossary Note 1: The definitions as given in dictionaries are the everyday language     usages, and are generally synonyms or properties of the word—not the nature (cause)     thereof. Spinoza attempts to find the cause.
 From Ethics: Part III: Def. of the Emotions XX Explanation:178 
    "But my purpose is to explain, not the meaning of words, but the nature of things ."  

The following are the entries for 'religion' given in "Webster's Electronic Dictionary". I posit that the definitions given do not get at the principle need, principle craving, and principle cause for Religion, PEACE-OF-MIND, but merely give its properties. Properties merely show the ways people hope to find Peace-of-Mind (PcM); however momentarily. 

re-li-gion (ri lij'uhn) n.      {JBY comments.}

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when     considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usu. involving devotional     and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs.
    {Knowing, positing, the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and your place in it, help bring PcM.
      Devotional and ritual observances help reinforce your beliefs.
     A moral code, and laws, for the conduct of human affairs certainly bring PcM. Constitution.}

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of     persons or sects: the Christian religion. {If the tenets of the Religion are believed and observed,
     it helps bring PcM. Mark Twain's "Little Story"}

8. <get religion>. a. to become religious; acquire religious convictions. b. to resolve to mend     one's errant ways {in order to bring PcM}.

[1150-1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religio conscientiousness, piety = relig (are) to tie, fasten (re- RE - + ligare to bind, tie; cf. LIGAMENT) + -io - ION; cf. RELY]
                  {To re-bind a torn apart world brings PcM; by not bringing-on atomic warfare.}

From Parkinson's Introduction to Bk.XV:xx-xxii—Spinoza's Religion:
                                                    Moral Agency, Robinson3:189.  

[Parkinson:1]  Spinoza, for his part, would agree that there is a connection between religion and the concept of G-D {posit 1D6 = ONE}; however, he would deny that religion, in the genuine sense of the term, requires the concept of a personal God. Religion, as he understands it, is 'Whatever we desire {PcM} and do of which we are the {active} cause, in so far as we ... know G-D' {because it brings Peace of Mind.} (4P37n1). To grasp the full meaning of this, one must take account of the fact that there is for Spinoza a link {Letter:3724[7]} between one's knowledge of G-D and one's activity as a moral agent {to act as a part of an infinite organism so that, that organism can be healthier and you, as part of that organism, be healthier. Damasio—biological, Robinson3:15}. This link involves what is page xxi perhaps the key concept of Spinoza's moral philosophy, namely, the concept of freedom {the heart acts freely in accordance with its nature, the lung acts freely in accordance with its nature, for the health of the organism.}. By 'freedom', in the context of his moral philosophy, Spinoza does not mean the freedom to philosophise which he defended in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, nor does he mean what is commonly called the 'freedom of the will'. Spinoza was in fact a strict determinist; in his view, whatever happens must happen, and nothing can happen other than what does happen (1P33). A free agent, for him, is not someone whose actions are undetermined; a free agent is someone whose actions are self-determined, i.e. who is an {active} autonomous agent. The connection between such freedom and the knowledge of G-D is this: Spinoza argues that to be self-determined is not to be controlled by one's passions; one is self-determined when one's reason is in control. This means that one is free when one understands oneself and, in so doing, understands that 'God, or Nature' of which one is an {organic} part.  

[Parkinson:2]  Since G-D, by virtue of being self-caused, is self-determined, it is not surprising that Spinoza should say that G-D is a 'free cause' (1P17c2). The problem is, how anything other than G-D can be called free. Spinoza insists that each particular thing is determined by another (1P28); how, then, can there be any point in finite beings such as ourselves having freedom as a goal? The answer, stripped of Spinoza's technical terminology, is this: To be a rational agent is to understand; now, Spinoza argues that when we understand {Mock} something, we are not reacting to external stimuli. Rather, G-D is (as it were) thinking through us, or, as Spinoza says, G-D is 'explained through the nature of the human mind' (2P11c).  

[Parkinson:3]  Just how this is to be interpreted is a matter of controversy, but perhaps enough has been said to show, in general terms, how Spinoza's moral philosophy is related to his views about G-D. It has been seen that the free man, the man who is the master of his passions, is the man who has understanding, and that such understanding involves a knowledge of, and indeed in a sense is, the knowledge of the ultimate and self-explanatory being. We can now return to Spinoza's use of the term 'religion' to refer to the desires and actions which are caused by our knowledge of such a being {things that bring peace-of-mind.}. The question is, whether this is a proper use of the term 'religion' - a question the answer to which bears on the question whether Spinoza is entitled to call page xxii his self-caused Being by the name 'G-D'. Certainly, it is hard to see how Spinoza's concept of religion can have any place for the concept of worship, or of petitionary prayer. Some might argue, however, that these concepts are not necessary to religion. What is necessary, they would say, is the idea that human beings are part of an {organic} whole, and one which is, in some way, a rational {determined to exist} whole. If one views religion in this way, then there is a case for saying that Spinoza did hold religious views, and that he had a right to use the word 'G-D' in the way that he did {Religious language}. One may add that it is probably this aspect of his philosophy, and not (say) his technical views about substance or about knowledge, that has proved attractive to many who are not philosophers.  

[Parkinson:4]  What has just been said about Spinoza and religion provides an answer to another question raised earlier (p.xviii): namely, whether Spinoza is one of those who see science and religion as in conflict. The answer is that he would not recognise such a conflict - provided that 'religion' is taken in his sense of the term. We have seen that, for Spinoza, to speak of religion is to speak of those desires and actions that spring from a knowledge of G-D. Similarly, he would say that a scientific knowledge of the world depends in the last analysis on a knowledge of G-D, the ultimate explanation of all things. Spinoza would say, then, that in his sense of the term 'religion', there is no conflict between religion and science {Scientific Method}. However, he also believed that false views about G-D had been a major obstacle to understanding, and to those false views {God} he was firmly opposed.

G. H. R. PARKINSON
 

 

From Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.  [Accessed July 18, 2003].  

Salvation—Nature and significance:     ST:Wolfson:2:3113, Scr:Dijn'sSalvation, Nagel:274.

It could be argued reasonably that the primary purpose of all religions is to provide {hypothesize} salvation for their adherents, and the existence of many different religions {Spinoza's Religion} indicates that there is a great variety of opinion about what constitutes salvation and the means of achieving it— {peace-of-mind}. That the term salvation can be meaningfully used in connection with so many religions, however, shows that it distinguishes a notion common to men and women of a wide range of cultural traditions.

EB Salvation
[2]  The fundamental idea contained in the English word salvation, and the Latin salvatio and Greek soteria from which it derives, is that of saving or delivering from some dire situation {no atheists in a foxhole, religion}. The term soteriology {spiritual salvation, esp. by divine agency} denotes beliefs and doctrines concerning salvation in any specific religion, as well as the study of the subject. The idea of saving or delivering from some dire situation logically implies that mankind, as a whole or in part, is in such a situation. This premise, in turn, involves a series of related assumptions about human nature and destiny.

EB Salvation
[3] Salvation—Objects and goals: 

The creation myths of many religions express the beliefs that have been held concerning the original state of mankind in the divine ordering of the universe. Many of these myths envisage a kind of Golden Age at the beginning of the world, when the first human beings lived, serene and happy, untouched by disease, aging, or death and in harmony with a divine Creator. Myths {a traditional or legendary story, esp. one that involves gods and heroes and explains a cultural practice or natural object or phenomenon} of this kind usually involve the shattering of the ideal state by some mischance, with wickedness, disease, and death entering into the world as the result. The Adam and Eve myth is particularly notable for tracing the origin of death, the pain of childbirth, and the hard toil of agriculture, to man's disobedience of his maker. It expresses the belief that sin is the cause of evil in the world, and implies that salvation must come through man's repentance and God's forgiveness and restoration.

EB Salvation
[4]  In ancient Iran, a different cosmic situation was contemplated, one in which the world was seen as a battleground of two opposing forces: good and evil, light and darkness, life and death. In this cosmic struggle, mankind was inevitably involved, and the quality of human life was conditioned by this involvement. Zoroaster, the founder of Zoroastrianism, called upon men to align themselves with the good, personified in the god Ahura Mazda, because their ultimate salvation lay in the triumph of the cosmic principle of good over evil, personified in Ahriman. This salvation involved the restoration of all that had been corrupted or injured by Ahriman at the time of his final defeat and destruction. Thus the Zoroastrian concept of salvation was really a return to a Golden Age of the primordial perfection of all things, including man. Some ancient Christian theologians (e.g., Origen) also conceived of a final “restoration” in which even devils, as well as men, would be saved; this idea, called universalism, was condemned by the church as heresy.

EB Salvation
[5]  In those religions that regard man as essentially a psychophysical {the branch of psychology that deals with the relationships between physical stimuli and resulting sensations and mental states} organism (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Islam), salvation involves the restoration of both the body and soul. Such religions therefore teach doctrines of a resurrection of the dead body and its reunion with the soul, preparatory to ultimate salvation or damnation. In contrast, some religions have taught that the body is a corrupting substance in which the soul is imprisoned (e.g., Orphism, an ancient Greek mystical cult; Hinduism; and Manichaeism, an ancient dualistic religion of Iranian origin). In this dualistic view of human nature, salvation has meant essentially the emancipation of the soul from its physical prison or tomb and its return to its ethereal home. Such religions generally explain the incarceration of the soul in the body in terms that imply the intrinsic evil of physical matter. Where such views of human nature were held, salvation therefore meant the eternal beatitude of the disembodied soul.

EB Salvation
[6]  Christian soteriology {spiritual salvation, esp. by divine agency} contains a very complex eschatological {any system of religious doctrines concerning last or final matters, as death, judgment, or an afterlife} program (regarding the final end of man and the world), which includes the fate of both individual persons and the existing cosmic order. The return of Christ will be heralded by the destruction of the heaven and earth and the resurrection of the dead. The Last Judgment , which will then take place, will result in the eternal beatitude of the just, whose souls have been purified in purgatory {esp. in Roman Catholic belief) a place or state following death in which penitent souls are purified of venial sins or undergo the temporal punishment still remaining for forgiven mortal sins and thereby are made ready for heaven}, and the everlasting damnation of the wicked. The saved, reconstituted by the reunion of soul and body, will forever enjoy the Beatific Vision; the damned, similarly reconstituted, will suffer forever in hell, together with the devil and the fallen angels. Some schemes of eschatological imagery, used by both Christians and Jews, envisage the creation of a new heaven and earth, with a New Jerusalem at its centre.

EB Salvation
[7] Salvation—Means of achieving: 
 The above means "to be saved from frustration by the LOVE of G-D."  

The hope of salvation has naturally involved ideas about how it might be achieved. These ideas have varied according to the form of salvation envisaged; but the means employed can be divided into three significant categories: (1) the most primitive is based on belief in the efficacy of ritual magic—initiation ceremonies, such as those of the ancient mystery religions, afford notable examples; (2) salvation by self-effort, usually through the acquisition of esoteric {private; secret} knowledge, ascetic {a person who practices self-denial and self-mortification for religious reasons} discipline, or heroic death, has been variously promised in certain religions—Orphism, Hinduism, Islam, for example; and (3) salvation by divine aid, which has usually entailed the concept of a divine saviour who achieves what man cannot do for himself—as in Christianity, Judaism, Islam.

From Gerth and Mills's "From Max Weber"; Copyright 1946; Pages 272-3—On Salvation. 

The annunciation and the promise of religion have naturally been addressed to the masses of those who were in need of salvation. They and their interests have moved into the center of the professional organization for the 'cure of the soul,' which, indeed, only therewith originated. The typical service of magicians and priests becomes the determination of the factors to be blamed for suffering, that is, the confession of 'sins.' At first, these sins were offenses against ritual commandments. The page 273 magician and priest also give counsel for behavior fit to remove the suffering. The material and ideal interests of magicians and priests could thereby actually and increasingly enter the service of specifically plebeian {common} motives. A further step along this course was signified when, under the pressure of typical and ever-recurrent distress, the religiosity of a 'redeemer' evolved. This religiosity presupposed the myth of a savior, hence (at least relatively) of a rational view of the world. Again, suffering became the most important topic. The primitive mythology of nature frequently offered a point of departure for this religiosity. The spirits who governed the coming and going of vegetation and the paths of celestial bodies important for the seasons of the year became the preferred carriers of the myths of the suffering, dying, and resurrecting god to needful men. The resurrected god guaranteed the return of good fortune in this world or the security of happiness in the world beyond. Or, a popularized figure from heroic sagas—like Krishna in India—is embellished with the myths of childhood, love, and struggle; and such figures became the object of an ardent cult of the savior. Among people under political pressure, like the Israelites, the title of 'savior' (Moshuach name) was originally attached to the saviors from political distress, as transmitted by hero sagas (Gideon, Jephthah). The 'Messianic' promises were determined by these sagas. With this people, and in this clear-cut fashion only among them and under other very particular conditions, the suffering of a people's community, rather than the suffering of an individual, became the object of hope for religious salvation. The rule was that the savior bore an individual and universal character at the same time that he was ready to guarantee salvation for the individual and to every individual who would turn to him.

The figure of the savior has been of varying stamp. In the late form ul Zroastrianism with its numerous abstractions, a purely constructed figure assumed the role of the mediator and savior in the economy of salvation. The reverse has also occurred: a historical person, legitimized through miracles and visionary reappearances, ascends to the rank of savior. Purely historical factors have been decisive for the realization of thesevery different possibilities. Almost always, however, some kind of theodicy {a vindication of God's justice in tolerating the existence of evil} of suffering has originated from the hope for salvation.

From Herman De Dijn's Book III:238-239—On Salvation.

[Dijn:1]  Once we know the truth about Natura (Ethics I) and about ourselves as knowers (Ethics II), we can take the last step in our investigation, which is to determine what adequate knowledge—especially of G-D and of our relation to him—can achieve with respect to our happiness {better word is peace-of-mind}. This happiness, or "blessedness" consists "in the knowledge of G-D alone, by which we are led to do only those things which love and morality advise" (2P49:65n). Happiness, virtue, and freedom are the same: they ultimately consist in, or closely depend upon, intuitive knowledge. To clarify these connections, announced at the end of Ethics II, we must investigate the link between knowledge and the dynamic-affective element in man—the power of adequate knowledge in restraining the emotions. Indeed, the wretchedness of our condition consists in the hold upon us of certain negative emotions related to all sorts of illusions. In order to determine the power of adequate knowledge in restraining the emotions, it is necessary first to understand the nature and origin of the emotions (Ethics III); second, to come to an insight into the inevitable bondage of man, which reason cannot overcome easily (Ethics IV); and third, to show that a life of freedom, through intuitive knowledge, is not altogether impossible (Ethics V).

[Dijn:2]  The answer to the question of what adequate knowledge can achieve requires an investigation into a kind of power struggle in humans between "external" influences, which are expressed in the passions (passive emotions), and the "internal force," which takes the form of adequate thinking and "active" emotions. We return full circle here to the "ethical" problematic of the beginning of the Treatise. But this time we are in a position to develop this problematic together with the master or the philosopher, page 239 because we are ourselves in possession of the truth about nature and man: we have experienced the pleasures of adequate thinking, and we desire the true and the highest good. Spinoza's ethics (in the strict sense) requires, in a preliminary step, an understanding of man's actual essence as a power expressing itself in emotions and desires (Ethics III). The ethics falls into two parts. In Ethics IV Spinoza investigates the power struggle as it is lived by rational man—how rational man's ethical life is determined by the formation of the notions of what is really good and bad, of rational rules for the good life, and of the ideal of free man. At the same time it is shown that the desire of rational man, as determined by this ideal and these notions and rules, is nevertheless neither effective nor free. In Ethics V the conditions of real freedom are laid out (the remedies against the passions): they consist in intuitive knowledge and the active affects related to it. Here Spinoza shows how knowledge can constitute real happiness or blessedness, which is, at the same time, real virtue or power. This part contains Spinoza's alternative for the traditional religious doctrine of salvation. It provides the final answer to the questions about happiness posed at the beginning of the Treatise. 

From Clifford's The Ethics of Belief reprinted in Klemke, Philosophy, ISBN: 0312084781;
        pp. 66ff—{Credulity of belief in God}. 

page 70 The harm which is done by credulity {gullibility} in a man is not confined to the fostering of a credulous character in others, and consequent support of false page 71 beliefs. Habitual want of care about what I believe leads to habitual want of care in others about the truth of what is told to me. Men speak the truth to one another when each reveres the truth in his own mind and in the other's mind; but how shall my friend revere the truth in my mind when I myself am careless about it, when I believe things because I want to believe them, and because they are comforting and pleasant? Will he not learn to cry "Peace" to me, when there is no peace? By such a course I shall surround myself with a thick atmosphere of falsehood and fraud, and in that I must live. It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my neighbors ready to deceive. The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat; he lives in the bosom of this his family, and it is no marvel if he should become even as they are. So closely are our duties knit together, that whoso shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

'To sum up: It is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. {Hall—It strikes me that it might not be unreasonable to bear Clifford's ethics of beliefs in mind when one is deciding whether to take a leap of faith on matters  theological, as well.}

"But," says one, "I am a busy man; I have no time for the long course of study which would be necessary to make me in any degree a competent judge of certain questions, or even able to understand the nature of the arguments." Then he should have no time to believe.

TTP3:XII(61):172—  

"For  from  the  Bible  itself  we  learn,  without  the smallest
difficulty   or   ambiguity,  that  its  cardinal  precept  is:   To 
love  G-D  above  all  things,  and one's neighbour as one's 
self { the golden rule }.  This  cannot  be  a  spurious passage, 
nor due to a hasty and mistaken scribe, ..."  

{The  Sacred  parts of Scripture are the ethical and moral parts
which   demand  obedience  to  commandments—laws.   Other 
parts  may be rejected or interpreted allegorically. This demand 
of  obedience  is  the  same  as  required  by any governmental 
or military law. No explanation of  the  law or command is given; 
nor any philosophy expounded; just do it—or else.} 

The Hebrew Bible is the Jewish bible "Tanakh" (The Five Books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings)  as sectarianly translated and sectarianly interpreted by Jews.  {Anti-Semitism}  

The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible as sectarianly translated and sectarianly interpreted by Christians.  

From Lawrence Boadt's Reading the Old Testament; Paulist Press 1984; ISBN: 0809126311; 
The term "Old' Testament; Page 19.  

Throughout this book we refer to the Old Testament rather than to Tanakh or Hebrew Scriptures. The main reason is that for Christians this has been the traditional name used through the centuries, and in a beginning Introduction it would only confuse the reader to develop a new vocabulary. But there are other reasons why the phrase "Hebrew Scripture" does not fully express the Catholic viewpoint. First of all, the deuterocanonical books are not written in Hebrew nor are they part of the accepted Bible of Protestants and Jews, yet they are an essential part of the Catholic Scriptures. Second the idea of "Hebrew Scriptures" versus presumably, "Greek" Scripture suggest a strong division between them which is foreign to a Christian faith commitment to the continuity of both Testaments. "Testament" was the Latin word chosen to translate the biblical idea of "covenant." {Testament occurs twelve times in the New Testament (Heb. 9:15, etc.) as the rendering of the Gr. diatheke, which is twenty times rendered "covenant" in the Authorized Version, and always so in the Revised Version. The Vulgate translates incorrectly by testamentum, whence the names "Old" and "New Testament," by which we now designate the two sections into which the Bible is divided.} But, unfortunately, "testament" was also a word used in a person's will leaving his possessions and final words to his heirs, and so misses the living sense of a covenant as an agreement between two people or two parties. Because it is so tied to the idea of death and a final statement, "testament" makes the new covenant of Jesus seem even more "new" and different than it should.  

Jewish people in particular express some fears about the Christian use of "old" in the Old Testament—and with good reason in the light of history. Many times, Christians, in the name of the Gospel of Jesus, have labeled the Jews as rejected by God and part of an old and replaced religious faith, as people who refused to accept Christ and therefore have no place or rights in the Kingdom of God which now have been taken from them and offered to the Gentiles instead. This is based on an over-zealous {I think; ignorant, cowardly, or evil are more honest words.} stretching of the New Testament itself, and in practice has led not to Christian actions, {who then, Hottentots?} but to terrible injustice against Jews. This occurred throughout the Middle Ages, and even in our own time. Although Hitler was not Christain {?, in any event, he operated in a Christian culture.}, many of his supporters were, and kept silent {or helped} during his {My emphasis; this pronoun is an attempt to absolve the Christian Church.} genocide because of an anti-Semitism based on a belief that it was willed by God. In the light of all this, Christians must be very careful how they understand the Scripture.  {Forgive my bitterness; how can a Jew who lived through those times not be embittered. Applying Spinoza's Dictum is very difficult and I repeatedly fail to understand how the Holocaust could happen on such a scale, and I am left with no peace-of-mind which I must carry to my grave.}

From Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene; 0192860925; p. 270—Hebrew Bible.

p. 16 'Behold a virgin shall conceive. . . ' 

Several distressed correspondents have queried the mistranslation of 'young woman' into 'virgin' in the biblical prophecy, and have demanded a reply from me. Hurting religious sensibilities is a perilous business these days, so I had better oblige. Actually it is a pleasure, for scientists can't often get satisfyingly dusty in the library indulging in a real academic footnote. The point is in fact well known to biblical scholars, and not disputed by them. The Hebrew word in Isaiah {7:14} is (almah), which undisputedly means 'young woman', with no implication of virginity. If 'virgin' had been intended, (bethulah) could have been used instead (the ambiguous English word 'maiden' illustrates how easy it can be to slide between the two meanings). The 'mutation' occurred when the pre-Christian Greek translation known as the Septuagint rendered almah into (parthenos), which really does usually mean virgin. Matthew (not, of course, the Apostle and contemporary of Jesus, but the gospel-maker writing long afterwards), quoted Isaiah in what seems to be a derivative of the Septuagint version (all but two of the fifteen Greek words are identical) when he said, 'Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel' (Authorized English translation). It is widely accepted among Christian scholars that the story of the virgin birth of Jesus was a late interpolation, put in presumably by Greek-speaking disciples in order that the (mistranslated) prophecy should be seen to be fulfilled. Modern versions such as the New English Bible correctly give 'young woman' in Isaiah. They equally correctly leave 'virgin' in Matthew, since there they are translating from his Greek. 

From Encyclopædia Judaica on a CD-Rom. [Accessed September 22, 2003]. 

NEW TESTAMENT, the Christian Holy Scriptures
(other than the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha). 

The name in Greek is the translation of the Hebrew words "Berit Hadashah" {new covenant} in Jeremiah 31:30: "Lo, the days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah." Since Jeremiah states clearly that the "new covenant" will be made with Israel and Judah, and not with other nations, there is nothing in this passage at variance with the Jewish Holy Scriptures. The confrontation, however, of the New Testament with the Hebrew Bible—which the Christians refer to as the Old Testament—as two conflicting covenants, is already found in the Gospel of Luke (22:20) and in Paul's Epistles (e.g., I Cor. 11:25; II Cor. 3:6, 14).
 

Spinoza's G-D,  though simple, is a very abstract {A thought apart from           Posit: 1D6 = ONE
concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.} concept. 
If  it  is  anthropomorphized,  as in Scripture, it is easier to conceive 
and  then,  explain.  That  is  why,  in  the evolution of Religion, the            {A picture is worth
anthropomorphic  phase  came  first.   In the monotheistic religions,         a thousand abstractions}
they  both  end-up  with  the same conclusion—love your neighbor.  



I conjecture the reasons Spinoza continued to use the "language of           Spinoza's Meaning
religion", (G-D instead of Nature) are the following: 

The  term 'G-D' is justly retained because Spinoza attempts to
have it fulfill the same function as the traditional god (religion), 
which is, to bring Peace-of-Mind.                                                            Mark Twain

'G-D' adds importantly the ingredient of 'Peace-of-Mind' which
'Nature' does not.   
 
There is great "vested interest" in  the word "G-D"; it is associ-                  Isaac
ated, by many, with Peace-of-Mind.                                                      Bashevis Singer  

G-D is not lowered to Nature, but Nature is raised to G-D. 

The word "religion" as we use it does not exist in Biblical Hebrew.                   Torah  
They  looked  upon  the  Bible  as  we  do  our  Constitution,  and                Constitution 
took  it  as  a  given—a way of life.    The Hebrew Bible was their 
Constitution   and   Legislative   enactments;   Post-biblically,  the 
Talmud  was, and  is,  the  equivalent  of  a  modern  Law Library.          Din Medinah Din
When   modern   Hebrew  had  to  coin  a  word for "religion" they 
chose  the  word  (daht) whose root is "knowledge",  Strong:1847 
from 3045.  EL:[64]:xxxi. 

E4:(Prf:27):189—Good and Evil 

"As  for  the  terms good and bad, they indicate no positive                Good
quality  in  things  regarded  in  themselves, but are merely 
modes  of  thinking,   or  notions  which  we  form  from  the 
comparison  of  things  one  with  another.  Thus  one  and 
the  same   thing  can  be  at the same time good, bad, and 
indifferent. ...."   

Nevertheless,  though  this  be  so,  the  terms  should still              Nevertheless
be retained.   For,  inasmuch  as we desire to form an idea 
of  man  as  a type of human nature which we may hold in  
view {as a model}, it will be useful for us to retain the terms  
in question,  in  the  sense  I have  indicated  {subjectively, 
from the point-of-view of the species 'man'.  

When  a  little  fish  is eaten by a bigger fish, does not the little fish 
"think"   that's   bad   and   does   not  the  bigger fish  "think"  that's 
good (because each one seeks to preserve itself)?"  We say that is  
Nature; if  the  cycle stops, all life stops.  However, we are like that 
little fish—or, like that big fish; abused or abuser. 

From Runes's Book XXV:iii - viii—Spinoza Dictionary
Spinoza: By Way of Introduction with Forward by Albert Einstein. 

[Runes:1]  It is with a certain amount of hesitance that I bring this small book before the general public. I had planned and prepared it, originally, for some of my friends who were desirous of becoming acquainted with the philosophy of our most well-known but least-read thinker. They, like many others, felt the spark that blinked through the massive, rigid structure of Spinoza's writings, but in spite of the serious efforts of many of them, they did not feel that they had succeeded in breaking through the terminological walls of the philosopher.

[Runes:2]  As a writer, Spinoza is a difficult man to comprehend. He set down his sentences cagily, in a circumscribed manner, and hintfully, sometimes allegorically, sometimes mockingly, often with tongue in cheek, and where permissible, with majestic grace and finality. Unlike other cardinal thinkers, he had no gift for word creation. There are so many new concepts in his metaphysical web, but hardly a single new term or word. He borrowed his words from the Atomists of ancient Greece, the Stoics, the scholastic  theologians, as well as from his Hebrew predecessors: Maimonides, Averroes, Crescas, and of course, the Frenchman Descartes.

[Runes:3]  This policy of word borrowing is quite confounding to the novice in the study of Spinoza, and it has confused even experienced students of philosophy, so much more so as our author felt obliged to adopt for his dissertations the then modish manner of writing more geometrico. One must bear in mind when reading Spinoza that he was a much watched man in a very watchful time. Some of his close friends were put to severe physical torture by the Dutch page iv authorities. Our author had only one of his works published during his lifetime, although a number of them were ready for publication for many years. In some manner, however, Spinoza and the other thoughtful men of his time managed to put ideas and hand-copied manuscripts into circulation by way of a considerable underground machinery. Many important books of that time were known to hundreds of men before they received the public impress of printer's ink.

[Runes:4]  It is obvious that since such conditions prevailed even in comparatively enlightened seventeenth century Holland, Spinoza put down many of his ideas sub rosa {confidentially; secretly; privately}.

[Runes:5]  As if these obstacles were not enough, we face, in the study of Spinoza, another, his quarrels with the Jewish community.

[ Runes:6]  Spinoza, who died at the early age of forty-five, was a descendant of rather poor Portuguese exiles, who had escaped the zealots of the Catholic Iberian Peninsula gone berserk with pillaging, expulsion, torture and auto da fé {the burning of heretics at the stake}. Some of those who escaped the most ungracious interpreters of Christian grace found asylum in Holland, which was then seething with Socinians {any follower of Faustus and Laelius Socinus, who rejected the divinity of Christ, original sin, etc.}, Mennonites, Puritans and other seekers of a Christian life that would no longer make a cruel mockery of the tenets of the Lord.

[Runes:7]  The Jews in Holland and the other countries of Western Europe lived in daily terror of their unfathomable Christian neighbors who, at the drop of some vile man's ugly word, would throw them [the Jews] into torturous dungeons or tie them to a spit and burn alive whimpering humans as you might roast a pig. And from the East of Europe came equally horrifying news of hordes of Cossack troops invading the defenseless ghettos of Poland, massacring the "pagan" Jews—men, women and children—upon the open invitation and with the fatherly blessings of the Russian Czar, the devout head of the Orthodox Church of the Christian Slavs.
page v
[Runes:8]  In those fearful days we find Baruch Spinoza, a Talmudic student in Amsterdam. There is actually little known as to how and why and when young Spinoza became involved in the activities of Socinians and other church groups of that city. But involved he became, and, after he had deserted his Jewish school (later, after the death of his father, even the Synagogue) it became known around town that the youth was doing considerable preaching of some peculiar text. The Jews of seventeenth century Amsterdam, as well as all the Jews of the Diaspora, had become accustomed to men and women who preferred the comparative safety of a superficially adopted dominant faith to living dangerously as a Jew in a Christian world. The Jews would cross those persons off their books, interpreting such reneging as purification of their community from the weaklings and opportunists.

[Runes:9]  But Spinoza, following in some way in the footsteps of that renegade, Uriel da Costa, was not and did not become a convert in the usual sense. Had he done so, the Jewish community would have treated him as it had all other run-aways—with indifference. But Spinoza remained a Jew, although he walked about propagating a threatening gospel, namely, that the Jewish Torah, the Book of Law {Din Medinah Din}, was written merely as a state law and was to be regarded only as such and nothing else, and inasmuch as the Jewish state had ceased to exist, the Jews of the world were no longer bound by the laws of the Torah. {This does not apply to the sacred parts of the Torah. The sacred parts are needed in all States now; and will still be needed in the to-be World State.} The Torah, in his opinion, was written, designed and meant for the physical comfort and security of the State of Israel {and all other States}, while, on the other hand, the Christian Bible bears witness to G-D's revelation to Jesus Christ, Whose voice, therefore, was to be regarded as no more and no less than the voice of G-D Himself. Vox Christi est vox Dei.

[Runes:10]  What made Spinoza yearn for such distinction page vi between the Christian Bible and the Hebrew Bible we do not know—a distinction which would have been utterly alien to Jesus, who said: "I did not come to destroy the Torah, but to fulfill it. {Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."}.

[Runes:11]  However, Spinoza did not see eye-to-eye with either Christ or Paul on the meaning and origin of the Hebrew Bible. Spinoza's dissension from fundamental Judaism would have meant nothing to the Jews of Amsterdam had not Spinoza gone about town buttonholing, with a strong and Talmudically trained mind, bewildered Jewish adolescents, trying to persuade them to disregard the {scriptural theological} laws of the Torah as being obsolete; this without thinking that thus he would leave the widely dispersed and cruelly suppressed tribes of Israel without their great inner refuge. To the Jews of Israel, then as now and ever before and ever after, the Torah meant the binding (religio) between man and man, family and family, tribe and tribe, over all continents. To the Jews in the mansions of England, in the ghettos of New York, in the dust of the market place of Yemen, in the native quarters of Morocco, in the universities of Italy, the Torah is the one book in their blood-spattered history that holds them together.

[Runes:12]  This ancient heritage, as first revealed to the bewildered people of the desert, chosen by Him as the instrument with which to destroy the polytheistic temples of a pagan world—this immeasurable heritage is symbolized in the Torah, the Books of Wisdom, the Admonitions of the Prophets, and the rest of the G-D-inspired literature which, for want of a better name, we still call the Bible [biblion, which is Greek for book], and the Jews, wherefrom the Lord chose a son, are still the People of the Book. From this people, his own people, Spinoza wanted to take the Book {not the sacred parts}.

[Runes:13]  Perhaps the Jews of Amsterdam should have let the young man go about his fantastic preaching, which surely would have been in vain. But the Jews were terrified at the mere thought that one of their own would want to steal that Book from them, that Book for which so many of their tribe had perished at the stake. They offered the irreverent page vii a bribe. They even tried to assassinate him. And finally, they placed over him the ban by which no Jew could either speak with him or approach him. For he was driven from the tribe of Israel, a renegade and dangerous traitor. Spinoza was only twenty-six when the Jews cast him out of their ranks. He wrote an irate Apologia, defending his rather untenable {incapable of being defended, as an argument or thesis; indefensible} position. Unfortunately this essay, written in Spanish, the language of the Inquisitors, has not been found. Spinoza never forgot his accusers and in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, a much, much later book, he still deals most negatively with orthodox Jewry. It is significant that Spinoza posits in this work the only condition under which the Torah, in his opinion, might become valid again, namely, through the re-creation of a Jewish state which, he meditates, is quite a possibility, considering the changing fortunes of world history. Well, the Jewish state has been re-created, and the Torah is valid again, even according to doubting Baruch, and all is well that ends well. The Jews have long forgiven Spinoza his juvenile paradoxisms and at the three hundredth anniversary of his birth, in 1932, he was publicly taken back into the Jewish fold by a duly representative assembly at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

[Runes:14]  I have mentioned these semi-tragic events in Spinoza's life because they have direct bearing upon some of his writings. We must take many of Spinoza's theological propositions with a grain of salt; as they were written by an outwardly cold and collected person, in whose heart burned a volcano of fire, love, devotion and pride. It was Nietzsche who first pointed out that Spinoza never forgave his people the excommunication.

[Runes:15]  I should also like to state at this time that there is as little true evidence to be found of Spinoza having been a lonely recluse, as there is truth in statements of some ill-wishing page viii contemporaries that he was a sinner and scoundrel. Spinoza was not a lonely man; he had many, many friends, —personal friends and social acquaintances, undoubtedly more than you and I can call our own. The wardrobe found at the time of his death indicates that he was neither impoverished nor dressed like a hermit.

[Runes:16]  I hope that a perusal of this small dictionary will indicate to the reader that only a man troubled by great desires and deep emotions would give so much of his mental efforts to clarify his inner life and desires; only a man plagued by the devil could find the path that angels tread.
                                                                                 D. D. R.

Forward to Runes's Introduction by Albert Einstein pages i & ii 

[Einstein:1]  I have read the SPINOZA DICTIONARY with great care. It is, in my opinion, a valuable contribution to philosophical literature. Spinoza is, among the great classical thinkers, one of the least accessible because of his rigid adherence to the geometric form of argumentation, in which form he obviously saw somewhat of an insurance against fallacies. In fact, Spinoza thereby made it difficult for the reader who all too quickly loses patience and breath before he reaches the heart of the philosopher's ideas.

[Einstein:2]  Many have attempted to present Spinoza's thoughts in modern language—a daring as well as irreverent enterprise which offers no guarantee against misinterpretation. Yet throughout Spinoza's writings one will find sharp and clear propositions which are masterpieces of concise formulation.

[Einstein:3]  In the book before us no one has the word but Spinoza himself. In alphabetical order one will find definitions, propositions and explanations in Spinoza's own words which interpret essential issues in a manner comparatively easy to comprehend, avoiding forbidding formalism. {I find the references inadequate—too bad hypertext linking was not available.}  

[Einstein:4]  It certainly is not the purpose of the editor to make, through this book, the study of the original works superfluous. If however the reader despairs of the business of finding his way through Spinoza's works, here he will find a reliable guide. Where there is still lack of clarity this is caused only by the fact that Spinoza himself in his struggle for clarity did not reach full perfection.

[Einstein:5]  Here one will find, for instance, detailed statements about "substance" and "modes" where one can notice the hard struggle. Here one finds the majestic concept that thinking (soul) {thought} and extension (naturalistically conceived world) page ii are only different forms of appearance resp. conceptual interpretations of the same "substance". (In expressing it this way, however, I have committed the very sin I mentioned above.) Well, everyone may interpret Spinoza's text in his own way. It is certain that our philosopher had fully recognized the senselessness of the question of an interaction of soul and body {pineal gland}, as well as the problem which of both be the "primary".

[Einstein:6]  The grand ideas of the Ethics are brought out clearly in the book, not less than the heroic illusions of this great and passionate man.

                                                                                         ALBERT EINSTEIN

Princeton, 1951


End of Forward

  

From Book 33 Yirmiyahu Yovel's Spinoza and Other Heretics, ISBN: 0691020787, Page127.

Rojas Versus Spinoza 
Rojas (1476? -1541) a marrano who wrote La Celestina, 
an evocative {to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usu. to mislead or to avoid commitment; hedge}
play on the Marrano {a Spanish or Portuguese Jew forced to convert to Christianity during the late Middle Ages} condition under the inquisition. 

Herein lies the major difference between Rojas and Spinoza, the philosopher who both continued and opposed him. Spinoza's new world picture had inner power and coherence lacking in Rojas. The difference, however, does not lie in the contrast between Spinoza the systematic thinker and Rojas the poet. It transcends all matters of form, method, and rigor, penetrating to the deeper layers of their respective metaphysical outlooks. The fact that Spinoza's world is much more coherent and organized is partly due to the fact that, in its metaphysical content, it is a world enjoying intrinsic meaning and unity, not a hybrid of two lost religions but a new, positive entity, a deified nature that inherits the absolute positivity, divinity, and sublimity of the old transcendent God. It is this inner feature of Spinoza's universe, its intrinsic power and coherence, that is manifest in the logical coherence of his philosophical system. But, in addition, this is the outcome of the fact that logos, or reason, has been restored to the natural world just as the perspective of a transcendent God has been banished from it. Reason itself is deified in Spinoza, as the principle governing Nature/G-D. Unlike Rojas before him—and unlike Nietzsche later—Spinoza sees rational meaning in natural necessity, and rational meaning is divine meaning to him. It has—or will have for the true philosopher—the same invigorating power, and even the same function—a this-worldly form of salvation, occurring immanently within this life—that belief in a transcendent God and the next world had for religious believers. Moreover, Spinoza discards the vestiges of the Christian outlook which we have found in Rojas and with which Nietzsche grapples—those vestiges which, in the Nietzschean idiom would be called 'the shadows of the dead God." For Spinoza, abolishing the transcendent God does not leave the world subject to the Christian outlook of an inferior, Godless sphere; rather, it is the world itself that is deified. The absolute, or G-D, is relegated to where it really belongs, as opposed to its distortion in historical religion. It is above all, I think, this total liberation from the vestiges of Judaism and Christianity, which neither Rojas, nor even Nietzsche, can claim, and which elevates this world to a divine plane, that has aroused the uproar against Spinoza and branded him the most challenging atheist.

 

From Yirmiyahu Yovel's Spinoza and Other Heretics, ISBN: 0691020787, pp. 146 & 147.
{I have changed Yovel's spelling of God in accordance with Note 4.}  

Page 146 
Metaphoric-Systematic Equivalence. There is a whole series of terms which serve Spinoza as metaphors {the application of a word or phrase to an object or concept it does not literally denote, suggesting comparison to that object or concept, as in " A mighty fortress is our G-D"}, but are perfectly translatable into strict philosophical language. By redefining these traditional terms Spinoza {re-interpreted} transfers this semantic {of or pertaining to meaning or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols} core from the realm of the imagination to that of reason {an evolutionary process}. Although the literal sense of the term may be very misleading (e.g., "the will of G-D"), there is another, {evolutionary,} philosophical sense into which it can be translated and which constitutes its tacit {implied} new meaning. 
                                                  Hampshire:203 - Principles                          Paradigm Shift
{Language of Religion. Use of 'Spirit' as a metaphor; use of 'Breath' as a metaphor.} 
{Very important for the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures are TTPI:I(15) and TTPI:CI(65).}  

Page 147
Given this relation, we can offer a few translations of metaphoric expressions of this kind into their systematic equivalents: 

G-D's intellect/mind: The totality of adequate ideas (including all individual essences, and          all true propositions and theories about the universe) taken in their interrelations. 

G-D's will/voice: The totality of things, events, and processes in the universe, taken in          their necessary causal connections.  {Durant:639, Hampshire:202, Letter:3219:331.}  

G-D's power: The same as G-D's will (with a subjective emphasis on factuality). 

Creation: The inner particularization of the substance in accordance with the logical laws         of its nature (Ethics, pt. I, prop. I6).  {Example - A fetus into a Man.}

Salvation: Knowledge of the third kind coupled with intellectual love of G-D/Nature. 

G-D's omnipresence: The fact that all modes are in the substance.  {Spinoza's Pantheism}

G-D's decrees/laws/precepts: The eternal laws of Nature. 

G-D/Nature loves justice and benevolence {No, see 5P17}: Justice and mutual help are models for imitation in conduct {for the perpetuation of Man}.  

Depending on context, the expressions on the left (and others like them) can be used either in their metaphoric capacity or as direct substitutes for the expressions on the right. Spinoza uses them both ways, to suggest or prefigure rational ideas and, in particular, to embody and encapsulate some of the major principles by which the imagination is to be reshaped as a practical imitation of reason. Metaphoric discourse serves him here in a constructive capacity, as building-blocks of the semirational imagination.  

{Very important for the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures are TTPI:I(15) and TTPI:CI(65).}

From Ismar Schorsch's Foreward to Etz Hayim (A Living Tree), Torah and Commentary;
The Rabbinical Assembly; The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism;  
Produced by The Jewish Publication Society; 2001; ISBN: 0827607121; Page xvii.  

Judaism is above all a life of dialogue. Ever since Sinai, G-D and Israel have conversed and interacted through the medium of Torah. Revelation destined Israel to become a nation of readers and interpreters {Menorah}. Yet as the incarnation of the divine word, Scripture bore an infinite range of meanings. Jews learned to read deeply rather than quickly, disjunctively as well as contextually. Each generation and every Jew was bidden to pore over the text afresh to internalize its normative force and to garner another layer of undetected meaning {Spinoza was an exemplar}. Endlessly malleable because it was supremely venerated, Scripture functioned as a canon without closure.

[2]  Ben Bag-Bag, an early rabbi and possible convert to Judaism, caught the spirit of this reciprocal bond to Scripture when he counseled: "Study it and review it—you will find everything in it. Scrutinize it, grow old and gray in it, do not depart from it. There is no better portion of life than this." For Jews, Scripture serves as a fount and refuge. To the extent that we strive to illuminate its inexhaustible contents, it rewards us with insight into the meaning of our own lives. Commentary is the quintessential genre of Jewish expression, an unending series of encounters with the divine that refract the history and mind-set of each age and author.

[3]  To this awesome library of commentaries, Etz Hayim adds a distinctively new Conservative voice, both scholarly and religious, theoretical and applied. Like many Jewish classics, it is the work of many hands, a tapestry of kaleidoscopic power. I salute the editors and contributors who joined their talents and sensibilities to bring it to fruition. My prayer is that it will soon become not only the standard commentary for every Conservative synagogue but also the home study companion for every serious student of Torah.

                                                        Ismar Schorsch May 2000 / Nisan 5760

From Thoemmes Press - History of Ideas - Benedict de Spinoza - Philosophy/Religion.

                                                    {literal biblical views of God}
Spinoza’s attempt to separate {scriptural} theology from philosophy is largely based on a highly innovative assessment of the true meaning of the Bible. In the Tracatus theologico-politicus Spinoza argues that the Scriptures convey only a single, essentially moral lesson. They demand obedience: in the {Hebrew Bible} the Jews are told that they should obey the Law, the New Testament teaches mankind to obey God. According to Spinoza both demands can be reduced to the commandment to love one’s neighbour as oneself. As a consequence, theology should be regarded as an essentially moral discipline, whereas philosophy is concerned with the discovery of truths. Although many of Spinoza’s early readers were outraged by his treatment of the Bible and the subversive way in which he dealt with the professional expertise of theologians, and although many admirers of the Ethics have often found it difficult to account for Spinoza’s recognition that the Bible succeeds in delivering a morality equally capable of effecting - some sort of - salvation, it does not seem too far-fetched to state that the outcome of the moral philosophy contained in the Ethics does not differ fundamentally from the biblical morality Spinoza claims to deduce from scripture.

From Max Jammer's Einstein and Religion; ISBN: 0691006997; 1999; p. 94—Three stages in         the Evolution of the Concept of G-D—Paradigm Shifts. 

But Einstein qualified his statements about the compatibility of religion and science "with reference to the actual content of historical religions." "This qualification," he continued, "has to do with the concept of God {G-D}." He then mentioned, though more briefly than in his 1930 essay, his theory of the three stages in the evolution of religion and the concept of God {G-D} and declared that "the main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science Iies in this concept of a personal God." Although he conceded that the doctrine of a personal God could never be refuted, because such a doctrine could always take refuge where science has not yet been able to gain a foothold, he called such a procedure  

not only unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.  

From Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking The Spell; 2006; 067003472X; pp. 267-8—Accepting the          Theory of Evolution: 

Moreover, the evidence of history makes it clear that, as time has passed, people's moral sense about what is permissible and what is heinous has shifted, and along with it their convictions about what God loves and hates. Those who see either blasphemy or adultery as a crime deserving of the death penalty are today a dwindling minority, thank heaven. Still, the reason people care so much what other people believe about God is a fine reason, so far as it goes: they want the world to be a better place. They think that getting others to share their beliefs about God is the best way to achieve that end, and this is far from obvious.  

I, too, want the world to be a better place. This is my reason for wanting people to understand and accept evolutionary theory: I believe that their salvation may depend on it! How so? By opening their eyes to the dangers of pandemics, degradation of the environment, and loss of biodiversity, and by informing them about some of the foibles of human nature. So isn't my belief that belief in evolution is the path to salvation a religion? No; there is a major difference. We who love evolution do not honor those whose love of evolution prevents them from thinking clearly and rationally about it! On the contrary, we are particularly critical of those whose misunderstandings and romantic misstatements of these great ideas mislead themselves and others. In our view, there is no safe have for mystery or incomprehensibility. Yes, there is humility, and awe, and sheer delight {lntellectual love of G-D}, at the glory of the evolutionary landscape, but it is not accompanied by, or in the service of, a willing (let alone thrilling) abandonment of reason. So I feel a moral imperative to spread the word of evolution, but evolution is not my religion. I don't have a {organized} religion.  

From Will and Ariel Durant's The Story of Civilization: Part VIII, Chapter XXII - Spinoza.
ISBN: 0671012150, 1963, pp. 636-641.  

{I have changed Durant's spelling of God in accordance with Note 4.} 

And so we come at last to the book into which Spinoza had poured his life and solitary soul.  

[Durant:1]  He called it Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata, first because he thought of all philosophy as a preparation for right conduct and wise living, and second because, like
Descartes, he envied the intellectual asceticism and logical sequence of geometry. He hoped to build, on the model of Euclid, a structure of reasoning in which every step would follow logically from preceding proofs, and these would at last be irrefutably {full-proofly} derived from axioms universally received. He knew that this was an ideal, and he could hardly have supposed it proof against error, for he had by a similar method expounded the Cartesian philosophy, with which he did not agree. At least the geometrical scheme would make for clarity; it would check the confusion of reason by passion, and the concealment of sophistry with eloquence. He proposed to discuss the behavior of men, and even the Nature of G-D, as calmly and objectively as if he were dealing with circles, triangles, and squares. His procedure was not faultless, but it led him to rear an edifice of reason imposing in its architectural grandeur and unity. The method is deductive, and would have been frowned upon by Francis Bacon; but it claimed to be in harmony with all experience.

[Durant:2]  Spinoza began with definitions, mostly taken from medieval philosophy. The words he used have changed their meaning since his day, and now some of them obscure his thought. The third definition is fundamental: "I understand Substance to be that which is in itself and is conceived through itself; I mean that, the conception of which does not depend upon the conception of another thing from which it must be formed" {1D3}. He does not mean substance in the modern sense of material constituents; our use Page 637 of the word to mean essence or basic significance comes closer to his intent. If we take literally his Latin term substantia, it indicates that which stands under, underlies, supports. In his correspondence (70 - Letter27(9)) he speaks of "substance or being"; i.e., he identifies substance with existence or reality. Hence he can say that "existence appertains to the nature of substance," that in substance, essence and existence are one. (71) We may conclude that in Spinoza substance means the essential reality underlying all things {1D6}.


[Durant:3]  This reality is perceived by us in two forms: as extension or matter {2P2}, and as thought or mind {2P1}. These two are "attributes" of substance; not as qualities residing in it, but as the same reality perceived externally by our senses as matter, and internally by our consciousness as thought. Spinoza is a complete monist {a person holding the philsophical theory that there is only one basic substance or principle as the ground of reality or that reality consists of a single element}: these two aspects of reality—matter and thought—are not distinct and separate entities, they are two sides, the outside and the inside, of one reality; so are body and mind, so is physiological action and the corresponding mental state. Strictly speaking, Spinoza, so far from being a materialist {a person who holds the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies}, is an idealist {a person who maintains that the real is of the nature of thought or that the object of external perception consists of ideas}, {Solution of Materialism and Idealism.}: he defines an attribute as "that which the intellect apprehends of substance as constituting its essence" (72); he admits (long before Berkeley was born) that we know reality, whether as matter or as thought, only through perception or idea {Bombardi}. He believes that reality expresses itself in endless aspects through an "infinite number of attributes," of which we imperfect organisms perceive only two. So far, then, substance, or reality, is that which appears to us as matter or mind. Substance and its attributes are one: reality is a union of matter and mind; and these are distinct only in our manner of perceiving substance. To put it not quite Spinozistically, matter is reality externally perceived; mind is reality internally perceived. If we could perceive all things in the same double way—externally and internally—as we perceive ourselves, we should, Spinoza believes, find that "all things are in some manner animate" (omnia quodammodo animata) (73); there is some form or degree of mind or life in everything {stone}. Substance is always active: matter is always in motion; mind is always perceiving or feeling or thinking or desiring or imagining or remembering, awake or in sleep. The world is in every part of it alive.


[Durant:4]  G-D, in Spinoza, is identical with substance; He is the reality underlying and uniting matter and mind. G-D is not identical with matter (therefore Spinoza is not a materialist), but matter is an inherent and essential attribute or aspect of G-D (here one of Spinoza's youthful heresies {pantheism} reappears). G-D is not identical with mind (therefore Spinoza is not a spiritualist), but mind is an inherent and essential attribute or aspect of G-D. G-D and sub-stance are identical with Nature (Deus sive substantia sive Natura) and the totality of all being (therefore Spinoza is a pantheist).


[Durant:5]  Nature has two aspects. As the power of motion in bodies, and as the power of generation, growth, and feeling in organisms, it is Natura Naturans Page 638 —Nature "creating" or giving birth {G-D}. As the sum of all individual things, of all bodies, plants, animals, and men, it is natura naturata—generated or "created" nature {G-d}. These individual entities in generated nature are called by Spinoza modi, modes—transient modifications and embodiments of substance, reality, matter-mind, G-d. They are part of substance, but in our perception we distinguish them as passing, fleeting forms of an eternal whole. This stone, this tree, this man, this planet, this star—all this marvelous kaleidoscope of appearing and dissolving individual forms—constitute that "temporal order" which, in On the Improvement of the Intellect, Spinoza contrasted with the "eternal order" that in a stricter sense is the underlying reality and G-D:  

[100] By series of causes and real entities I do not understand.., a series of individual mutable things, but the series of fixed and eternal things. For it would be impossible for human weakness to follow up the series of individual mutable things [every stone, every flower, every man] ... Their existence has no connection with their essence [they may exist, but need not], or . . . is not an eternal truth. [101] . . . This [essence] is only to be sought from fixed and eternal things, and from the laws inscribed in those things as in their true codes, according to which all individual things are made and arranged {as in 1D6}; nay, these individual and mutable things depend so intimately and essentially (so to speak) on these fixed ones, that without them they can neither exist nor be conceived (74 - TEI:[99] to [101]).  

From Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"; Washington Square Press; 18th Printing, 1965; Page 169—Importance of 1D6 = ONE: 

If we will keep this passage in mind as we study Spinoza's masterpiece, it will itself be clarified, and much in the Ethics that is discouragingly complex will unravel itself into simplicity and understanding. {ONE—posits that we are all a part of an infinite Organism, i.e. G-D. 1D6—posits where we fit in, in the scheme of this Organism. (Religion, finding Peace of-Mind, is understanding where, and how, you fit in; knowing where, and what, you are.}


[Durant:6]  So a single, specific triangle is a mode; it may but need not exist; but if it does it will have to obey the laws—and will have the powers—of the triangle in general. A specific man is a mode; he may or may not exist; but if he does he will share in the essence and power of matter-mind, and will have to obey the laws that govern the operations of bodies and thoughts. These powers and laws constitute the order of Nature as Natura Narurans; they constitute, in theological terms, the will of G-D. The modes of matter in their totality are the body of G-D; the modes of mind in their totality, are the mind of G-D; substance or reality, in all its modes and attributes, is G-D; "whatever is, is in G-D (75).


[Durant:7]  Spinoza agrees with the Scholastic philosophers that in G-D essence and existence are one—His existence is involved in our conception of His essence, for he conceives G-D as all existence itself. He agrees with the Scholastics that G-D is causa sui, self-caused, for there is nothing outside him. He agrees with the Scholastics that we can know the existence of G-D, but not his real Nature in all his attributes. He agrees with St. Thomas Aquinas that to apply the masculine pronouns to G-D is absurd but Page 639 convenient. He agrees wlth Maimonides that most of the qualities we ascribe to G-D are conceived by weak analogy with human qualities.  

G-D is described as the lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding and the imperfection of popular knowledge (77) ... G-D is free from passions, nor is he affected with any emotion [affectus] of joy or sorrow (78) ... Those who confuse divine with human nature easily attribute human passions to G-D, especially if they do not know how passions are produced in the mind (79).


[Durant:8]  G-D is not a person, for that means a particular and finite mind; but G-D is the total of all the mind (all the animation, sensitivity, and thought)—as well as of all the matter—in existence (80 - Bk.XIV:2:158). "The human mind is part of a certain infinite intellect'' (81 - L32, 2P11c) (as in the Aristotelian-Alexandrian tradition). But "if intellect and will appertain to the eternal essence of G-D, something far else must be understood by these two attributes than what is commonly understood by men" (82). "The actual intellect, ... together with will, desire, love, etc, must be referred to the natura naturata, not to the Natura Naturans" (83); that is, individual minds, with their desires, emotions, and volitions, are modes or modifications, contained in G-D as the totality of things, but not pertaining to Him as the law and life of the world. There is will in G-D, but only in the sense of the laws operating everywhere. His will is law.


[Durant:9]  G-D is not a bearded patriarch sitting on a cloud and ruling the universe; He is "the indwelling, not the transient, cause of all things'' (84). There is no Creation, except in the sense that the infinite reality—matter-mind—is ever taking new individual forms or modes. "G-D is not in any one place, but is everywhere according to his essence." (85) Indeed, the word cause is out of place here; G-D is the universal {immanent} cause not in the sense of a cause preceding its effect, but only in the sense that the behavior of anything follows necessarily from its Nature. G-D is the cause of all events in the same way that the nature of a triangle is the cause of its properties and behavior. G-D is "free" only in the sense that He is not subject to any external cause or force {for nothing is external to Him.}, and is determined only by His own essence or Nature; but He "does not act from freedom of will" (86); all His actions are determined by His essence—which is the same as to say that all events are determined by the inherent nature and properties of things. There is no design in Nature in the sense that G-D desires some end; He has no Page 640 desires or designs, except as the totality contains all the desires and designs of all modes and therefore of all organisms. In nature there are only effects following inevitably from antecedent causes and inherent properties. There are no miracles, for the will of G-D and the "fixed and unchanged order of nature" are ONE; (87 - TTP1:III(13), TTP2:VI(88)) any break in "the chain of natural events" would be a self-contradiction.


[Durant:10]  Man is only a small part of the universe. Nature is neutral as between man and other forms. We must not apply to Nature or to G-D such words as good or evil, beautiful or ugly; these are subjective terms, as much so as hot or cold; they are determined by the contribution of the external world to our {species 'man'} advantage or displeasure.  

The perfection of things is to be judged by their nature and power alone; nor are they more or less perfect because they delight or offend the human senses, or because they are beneficial or prejudicial to human nature (88); . . . If, therefore, anything in nature seems to us ridiculous, absurd, or evil, it is because we know only in part, and are almost entirely ignorant of, the order and interdependence of nature as a whole; and also because we want everything to be arranged according to the dictates of our human reason. In reality that which reason considers evil is not evil in respect to the order and laws of nature as a whole, but only in respect to the laws of our reason (89).


[Durant:11]  Likewise there is no beauty or ugliness in nature. 

Beauty... is not so much a quality of the object beheld, as an effect in him who beholds it. If our sight were longer or shorter, if our constitutions were different, what we now think beautiful we should think ugly .... The most beautiful hand, seen through the microscope, will appear horrible (90) .... I do not attribute to nature either beauty or deformity, order or confusion. Only in relation to our imagination can things be called beautiful or ugly, well-formed, or confused (91).


[Durant:12]  Order is objective only in the sense that all things cohere in one system of law; but in that order a destructive storm is as natural as the splendor of a sunset or the sublimity of the sea. 


[Durant:13]  Are we justified, on the basis of this "theology," in calling Spinoza an atheist? We have seen that he was not a materialist, for he did not identify G-D with matter; he says quite clearly that "those who think that the Tractatus [theologico-politicus] rests on the identification of G-D with Nature—taking Nature in the sense of a certain mass of corporeal matter—are entirely wrong (92). He conceived G-D as mind as well as matter, and he did not reduce mind to matter; he acknowledged that mind is the only reality directly known. He thought that something akin to mind is mingled page 641 with all matter; in this respect he was a panpsychist. He was a pantheist, seeing G-D in all things, and all things in G-D. Bayle, Hume, and others (93) considered him an atheist; and this term might seem justified by Spinoza's denial of feeling {5P17}, desire, or purpose {1AP:6} in G-D (94 - Neff). He himself, however, objected to "the opinion which the common people have of me, who do not cease to accuse me falsely of atheism" (95 - Letter XXX; Bk.XIII:186). Apparently he felt that his ascription of mind and intelligence to God absolved him from the charge of atheism. And it must be admitted that he spoke repeatedly of his G-D in terms of religious reverence, often in terms quite consonant with the conception of God in Maimonides or Aquinas. Novalis would call Spinoza "der Gottbetrunkene Mensch," the G-D-intoxicated man.  


[Durant:14]  Actually he was intoxicated with the whole order of Nature, which in its eternal consistency and movement seemed to him admirable and sublime; and in Book I of the Ethics he wrote both a system of theology and the metaphysics of science. In the world of law he felt a divine revelation greater than any book, however noble and beautiful. The scientist who studies that law, even in its pettiest and most prosaic detail, is deciphering that revelation, or "the more we understand individual objects, the more we understand G-D (96 - 5P24) (This sentence struck Goethe as one of the pro-foundest in all literature.). 
It seemed to Spinoza that he had honestly accepted and met the challenge implicit in Copernicus—to reconceive deity in terms worthy of the universe now progressively revealed. In Spinoza science and religion are no longer in conflict; they are one.
 

"Monotheism" from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. [Accessed July 20, 2003].  

Pantheism and panentheism: 

Pantheism and panentheism are not necessarily connected with the notion of either monotheism or polytheism. In both cases the conception of the god or gods is impersonal, which tends, of course, to the conception of one god, of one divine substance, like Spinoza's deus sive natura, “G-D or Nature.” In pantheism G-D is immanent, in monotheism God is mostly transcendent, but in polytheism the gods may be either. Pantheism, however, is in most cases more a philosophical than a religious category. Sometimes the term panentheism is used to distinguish between the {Spinozistic} view that all is in G-D and {panentheism} that G-D is in all.

HirPent:Gn 43:14        Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view.       Scriptural Interpretation.

And may El Shaddai dispose the man to mercy toward you,
that he may release to you your other brother, as well as Benjamin.             See Note 2 for format
As for me if I am to be bereaved, I shall be bereaved,

And G-D, the All-limiting ONE grant you sympathy, in the presence of the man, that he may let your other brother and Benjamin go. And as for me—if I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved.

Only go trusting in the All-limiting ONE, G-D Who sets a limit at the right time to all suffering and troubles; at the moment of danger, at the moment you find yourselves, before the man, G-D will direct His mercy towards you. Raw-kham'-mim "Fondle - SG7355" designates that sympathy {5P17} of G-D {better, of a mother (a mode of G-D) for her child} which is the most general and most unlosable, and which equally is the fundamental trait which should characterise the relationship of His creatures one to the other {The Golden Rule}. It is family love, the love of' parents to children, and children to parents, the love of children to one another on account of the common rekh'-em "Womb - SG7358, 7355" out of which they come. People are inclined to mix up raw-kham'-mim with the popular rakh-mon-ise "Charity" and to take it to mean pity. And yet pity is a far lower feeling, far far beneath that which true raw-kham'-mim "Fondle - SG7355" means. Which is rarer, which ennobles Man more, to be moved to pity at others' sorrow, or to be moved to joy at their happiness? There are very few people who do not feel sympathy with the suffering of their fellow men. But it is not everybody, not by a long way, who feels sympathy with a poor man today and feels joy to a similar degree if he draws the first prize in the lottery overnight, and tomorrow he sees him pass him in the street riding with his family in a Rolls-Royce. Raw-kham'-mim "Compassion" {I-thee}, the feeling that we are to have inherited means more than pity. The word is derived from rekh'-em "Womb - SG7358, 7355" by which is designated the most self-sacrificing energy of one being for the formation of another being to come into existence and be completed; rekh'-em, the womb, is the hearth of the deepest devotion. And afterwards, too, when the new being is there, the rekh'-em begets not only sympathy with its crying but even more intimate joy with its smiling. A smile from the baby on the lap makes up for years of worry and sleepless nights. From this rekh'-em is raw-kham'-mim "Compassion", formed and not only suffers when the other suffers, but knows no rest until he sees him happy—and I, in the meantime, I will prepare myself, so that, if I am to be bereft of my children by your going away, I shall be ready to bear it.

HirPsalms: 1:1-3, 4-6; 1:2:1-3, 4-5, 6-9, 10-12; 2:92:5-10, 13-16. 

HirPsalm 1:1:1 Vol.1, psa.1, verse1.       Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view.       Scriptural Interpretation.

Happy is the man that hath not walked in the council of the wicked.                     {Mark Twain —
Nor stood in the way of sinners           {See Note 2 for format},                               No praise, no blame, 
Nor sat in the seat of the scornful.                                                                              but protect youself} 

Forward strides that man who has never                 Peace-of-Mind
      walked in the counsel of the lawless,
never stood in the path of the frivolous {Hirsch's translation for sinners},
and who has never sat where the scornful sit. 

"Happy - SG0835" and "Forward strides - SG0838" are in Hebrew phonetically related. "Happy" indicates a gathering, an accumulation of power and material goods. On the other hand, "forward strides" indicates "a step," to step forward, to "progress" (Prov. 4:14; 23:19). This indicates that true happiness is not the possession of faculties and material goods already attained {°P}, but, instead, the progress toward the eventual attainment of such material and spiritual wealth {d°P/dt}. It is "striding forward." Even the relative pronoun "which - SG0834", which is used to introduce the predicate to a subject or an object, expresses a step forward in thought, the vesting of an idea with an additional predicate, its enrichment with a new characteristic. Thus "happy" denotes all possible progress, progress in every respect. "Striding forward," advancement in all that which is {judged} desirable, is the basic motive and the goal of all the thoughts and acts of men.

The "lawless - SG7563", in order to reach this goal, emancipates himself from the law, the "frivolous - SG2400" man abandons his sense of duty and the "scornful - SG3887" man, the sophist {a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly}, scorns everything that seems to him a stumbling block in the path to the attainment of his heart's desire. All these three pride themselves as being progressive and regard as old-fashioned and inferior those who have scruples against their views and ways. As opposed to them the Psalm says: "forward strides the man", "that progress for which all of them strive is actually only with that man who does not follow their principles, but instead, derives all his principles, his endeavors and his views solely from the Law of the Lord.

"Never sat where the scornful sit." No person, least of all those faithful to their duty, can avoid having contact with theoretical enemies and scorners of the moral law in daily life and in the course of business activity. The duties of life can be fulfilled only in communion with others. No one can choose for himself the environment in which he will move. This environment is often arbitrarily given to each of us. It is in this very interaction with people of varying mental attitudes that the duty-conscious person must prove his G-D-oriented principles through a zeal that cannot be diverted or confused. After all, it is not in the hours of business and daily work, but during the leisure hours devoted to discussion and conversation that the sophistry of the "scorner" unfolds its art that is so confusing to logic and so detrimental to morals. It is not practiced while "walking or standing," but while "sitting." Anyone can avoid the "seat" of the "scorner". Anyone can decide for himself how to use his leisure time. During our leisure time we belong to ourselves and to those who share our views and attitudes on basic matters.

HirPsalm 1:2 Vol.1, p.3.        Scriptural Interpretation.    Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view.       

But his delight is in the law of the Lord; 
And in His law doth he meditate day and night. 
But whose striving is in the teaching of the Lord 
and who meditates in His Law day and night 

"Striving - SG2656" is a stronger form of "to seek," and "striving" denotes the goal and the striving {desire} for it. In contrast to the "lawless - SG7563", the "frivolous - SG2400" and the "scorners - SG3887", he finds his goals and his strivings for them only in the Law of G-D. There his goals have been set and his paths marked out. (It has been given to him for his understanding and for fulfillment by him, and therefore his constant and most intensive thinking moves in this his own Divine Law "day and night.") During the day, the time of his active fulfillment of life's tasks, the Torah {The entire body of Jewish religious literature, law, and teaching as contained chiefly in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud.} is the guide for his thinking, his desires and his actions. It protects him against the ways and by-paths of the "lawless" and the "sinners". The "night - SG3915", when man rests from his daily labors and turns to his perceptive and sensitive inner being, is devoted to the Torah, to "study". His leisure hours are utilized to enrich and ennoble his mind and his emotions through ever-growing recognition of all that is good and true, by ever-renewed and increasing enthusiasm for goodness and truth. In this manner he shall remain far from the "seat of the scornful" forever.

"Meditation - SG1897" is that active thinking which demands expression. Hence it is also the very specific expression denoting the thoughtful "study" of the Torah {and Spinoza}, which essentially is not attained through mere thoughts without words but, instead, requires even from him who "studies" alone the precise verbal expression of the thought which is being brought to life. Thus "meditation" is the result of active thinking as well as thoughtful verbal expression.

 

HirPsalm:1:3 Vol.1, p.4.       Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view.       Scriptural Interpretation.

And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water. 
That bringeth forth its fruit in its season, 
And whose leaf doth not wither; 
And in whatsoever he doeth he shall prosper. 
He shall be like a tree, planted by choice upon brooks of water, 
which brings forth its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither;
and whatever he does, he will carry through successfully. 

"He shall be". Through this absorption of all his thoughts, endeavors and actions into the Torah, he becomes "like a tree", etc. "Planted - SG8362" is not synonymous with "sowed". Sowed is the the original planting, planted however, is the transplanting of young shoots into soil best suited for their growth. It appears to be phonetically related to the Rabbinic {of or pertaining to rabbis or their learning, writings, etc.} expression of earnest endeavor. This expression is highly appropriate to the foregoing explanations. He draws nourishment for the development of his mind and character, not from the environment in which he happens to find himself by accident of birth or circumstances, but after serious deliberation he implants himself at the Source, where he can develop so as to assure for himself prosperity and welfare. As is stated in Verse 2, this source is, of course, the Torah. There could be some doubt as to the significance of the plural form "brooks - SG6388" used here. One might suppose that the tree could stand by one brook, but it could certainly not stand near many at the same time. Perhaps, therefore, this is intended to convey the thought that though there are many brooks, he, deliberately, planted himself only at that place where he shall receive the best nourishment. But if one considers that, actually, "brooks" would denote many separate branches of water, all springing from the same source, many brooks stemming from one common reservoir. This would be the real allegorical description of the Torah which, from the ONE Source of the Divine Truth, saturates life within and without, in all its aspects, and makes it bear fruit.

There is added the lesson that, in order not to remain one-sided, we ought to seek our spiritual education, from more than one teacher:

"which brings forth {SG5414} its fruit {SG6529} in season {SG6256}." As opposed to the manifestation of the lives of the "lawless" and the "sinners", which is the result of the influence of passion and levity, the human being who gets nourishment for his thinking and striving from the source of the Torah will give "his fruit in its season". He does everything that the Scriptural commandment expects of him, and does nothing that has not grown and matured under the purifying and ennobling influence of G-D's Torah. "His leaf also does not wither." To the ordinary eye, the leaf on the fruit tree seems an unimportant, useless part, and yet these leaves are as essential for the growth and thriving of the tree as the lungs are for the well-being of the animals. In the case of the mental and moral development of man, the role of the leaf would be played by that animation of the spirit and emotions which impels to action, an animation of the spirit brought about by the breath and the light of the Divine truths. And if "his fruit in its season" indicates the opposite of the manifestations of life as shown by the "lawless" and the "sinners", then "his leaf also does not wither {SG5034}." denotes a use of leisure time for intellectual and moral growth quite alien to the way of life of the "seat of the scornful." Thus we have the adage of our sages: even the ordinary conversation of the wise is worthy of studious attention, since it is said, "his leaf also has not withered".

"Whatever he does, he will carry through successfully {SG6743}" is the concrete expression of the consequences of that which was previously shown by means of the allegory of the blossoming tree. "Whatever he does, he will carry through successfully"—not: "He succeeds in everything he does" but: "Everything he does he shall carry through to a successful conclusion." He does not owe his success in his endeavors to chance and the mere coincidence of external circumstances. It is by undertaking only that which is in accordance with the motives and goals set by G-D in His Torah, that he assures himself of success.

HirPsalm 1:4 Vol.1, p.6.       Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view.       Scriptural Interpretation.

Not so the wicked; 
but they are like the chaff 
which the wind driveth away.  

The lawless are not so!
They are like the chaff
which the wind drives away. 

"The lawless are not so!". The fate awaiting the "lawless" and the "sinners," is pictured in the verses that follow and is introduced by "therefore," which presupposes a preceding description of the way of life that merits such a fate. Therefore "therefore," etc. cannot denote the failure of the undertakings of the wicked as opposed to the success of the plans laid by the righteous, and must instead be understood as an expression of contrast to the ethical conduct of the righteous. Therefore "the lawless are not so!" stands in contrast to "G-D's teaching". They do not derive the basic principle for all their actions from a Supreme Law that was handed down as unchangeable, and which is to be adopted by them as the mainspring of all their thoughts and desires. They are, instead, "as chaff - SG4671" which is the outer husk which, even though its shape is still similar to that of the fruit which it originally covered, has neither seed nor support of stem or root.

"Which the wind {SG7307} drives away {SG5086}"—it therefore succumbs to the force of the wind which drives it hither and yon. The lawless are thus. They have neither seed nor support and allow themselves to be swayed in every direction by the forces of passion and temptation.

HirPsalm 1:5 Vol.1, p.6.       Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view.       Scriptural Interpretation.

Therefore the wicked shall not stand in the judgment, 
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.  

Therefore the lawless shall not stand up in judgment
nor the frivolous in the congregation of the righteous.

"To remain standing", "to stand up - SG6965"; can also be translated as "to rise," "to rise to a standing position." "In judgment - SG4941" is the Divine Judgment over the deeds of men. Because the "lawless" seek neither inner nor outer support from G-D's moral Law revealed to man, but instead allow themselves to be swayed only by their passions and environmental temptations, they will be unable to rise up or "stand up" in the Divine Judgment. The "sinners," those who, in their levity, have forfeited their mission in life or have acted in contradiction to it, shall not be smitten by G-D's Judgment to the same extent as those who consciously and deliberately scorn His Law, but neither shall they find a place in the Divine Judgment among those who have remained faithful to their duty. "The righteous person - SG6662" denotes that man who, as opposed to the "lawless" and the "sinners," fulfills all his duties consciously and earnestly. "Congregation - SG5712" is an association based upon a common purpose and a common belief in that purpose.

HirPsalm 1:6 Vol.1, p.7.       Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view.       Scriptural Interpretation.

For the Lord regardeth the way of the righteous;
but the way of the wicked shall perish.   

For the Lord knows the way of the righteous,
and the way of the lawless shall perish. 

"To take note - SG3045" of, denotes G-D's continuing protective care. The path upon which the righteous walk, their entire way of life, is in accordance with G-D's intent for all of mankind, and He will not allow it to perish {man's HOPE}. It will constitute a subject of special attention for His rule of loving kindness. This is why the "righteous" can be sure of their progress toward salvation - SG3444. Their way is the one which G-D desires, and therefore He will further it. "The way of the lawless", on the other hand, needs no special Divine intervention in order to be thwarted. It perishes by itself; it is. hopeless from the very beginning, because it lacks God's loving care. "it loses itself" in barrenness; it does not attain its goal. Therefore, in the last verse, the mention of "way of the lawless" was deemed sufficient without a reiterated explicit mention of the "sinners". After all, the ways of both are identical. The "sinners" walk the same path in thoughtless frivolity as the "lawless" do consciously and knowingly. Therefore the sentence of "way of the lawless shall perish {SG0006}" applies also to the "way of the sinners".

This entire chapter is a lesson concerning "happy is the man"; i.e., the question: To whom shall the future belong, and who shall truly stride forward to all the goals of mankind. 
 

From Book XXIV:Page 3.

COMMENTATORS, both ancient and modern, differ as to whether the subject of the Psalm is the Messianic or a historical king, and if the latter, who he was. Rashi's comment is: "Our Rabbis expound it as relating to king Messiah; but according to its plain meaning it is proper to interpret it in connection with David, in the light of the statement: And when the Philistines heard that David was anointed King over Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David (2 Sam. v. 17)." The succession to the throne of Israel became the occasion of a political crisis which threatened the country with war. The theme of the Psalm is an exemplification of the proverb, "Man proposes, G-D disposes." If this is part of Psalm 1, or its continuation, we may best regard it as an application of its lesson to the national sphere. Psalm 1 then deals with the Two Ways {The way of the Godly and the way of the ungodly—but, everything is in G-D.} for individuals, Psalm 2 with the Two Ways for peoples.

HirPsalm 2:1 Vol.1, p.7. 

Why are the nations in an uproar?
And why do the peoples mutter in vain {devise vain sedition - Gesenius1897}?   

Why, then, are the nations in commotion
and why do the peoples speculate in vain, 

{Commentrary for Verses 1 and 2.} This chapter and the one preceding it belong together. Here the inferences for the lives of nations and the common future of mankind are drawn from the statements in the preceding chapter concerning the life of the individual. It was declared (in Psalm I) that there is a future only in loyal obedience to the Divine moral Law, because only ethical and moral endeavor can be sure of G-D's help. All contrary paths, however, in which disobedience and levity walk, shall forfeit their goal.

That which is true of the life of the individual applies equally to the lives of peoples and nations. One and the same law is applicable to both. Peoples and nations, too, will perish if, instead of placing their sovereignty and power at the service of the moral law, they will use their might in contradiction to that law.

At the time when men first separated into nations and started upon their plan: "let us make for ourselves a name", the erection of the Tower of Babel, the tower that was to represent their might and fame, G-D led one people of His own creation into the midst of the other nations. This people, in contrast to all others, was to serve as a guide for them all, and shall complete its stay on earth not based upon power or glory, but solely upon the loyal obedience to G-D's moral Law. The noblest son of this people, David, imbued with the spiritual and moral grandeur of such a mission, was consecrated by G-D unto Himself and unto the noblest scion {a descendant or offspring, esp. of an illustrious family.} of his tribe, as a herald of His message to the nations. David consciously aspired to fulfill this task with his Psalms which, after so many centuries, have so wondrously found their way from the banks of the Jordan to the hearths of all those who worship G-D. This mission of David will be brought to completion one day by the scion of the tribe of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1f.) who from the beginning had been consecrated for this purpose.

This psalm sees the nations and their rulers rise up against the protest lodged by that people which, in both joy and sorrow, has demonstrated the unique grandeur and the unique all-conquering power of G-D's Law, by virtue of its enduring existence and the inspired words of its Anointed - SG4899 against all opposing endeavors. The Psalmist confronts the nations of the earth with this question:

"Why - SG4100"—"why, then—since only the morally righteous can be sure of aid and furtherance by G-D's sovereign rule—why, then," etc.

From Book XXIV:Psalm 2:1 

"Why". The question does not seek the reason for the planned revolt, but expresses astonishment at its planning because it is futile. For men to set themselves against G-D's decree {interpreted} is 'as hopeless as if the stars were to combine to abolish gravitation' (M.). 

"To rage - SG7283" means to be put into motion by some outside influence. "People - SG1471" is a people that is united from without into one single body. "A Nation - SG3816" is the State as that order which organizes and rules its society from within. (See Gen. 25:23). {The following are words in Verse 2.} "Kings - SG4428" are, primarily the representatives and leaders of the national powers united towards the outside. "Rulers - SG7336" are the leaders of this State order. "Against the Lord and his anointed" refers to all the four statements of Verses 1 and 2. The activity of the nations as closed units, is shown by "the rage"; in the movement agitated by its leaders, the activity of the peoples is shown by "the muttering - SG1897", in the speculation concerning feasible ideas for the inner life of the people. The activity of the kings is described by the consolidation of their positions of power at the helm of the peoples; and the activity of the "leaders" in the communal deliberation and final determination of the principles of their constitution. The Psalmist sees all these aspects of the lives of the nations and their activities directed "against the Lord and his anointed". They all, consciously or unconsciously, have one common goal; namely to emancipate themselves from the sovereignty of the one supreme principle, that of dutiful obedience to the moral Law of G-D which came to their awareness through the historical fact of the existence of His people and of His anointed. Only to this law did G-D promise His aid and furtherance. Upon this law did G-D build His world order, and only through the observance of this law can nations attain enduring peace in their domestic and foreign relationships. The refusal to swear allegiance to this moral law because of considerations of personal interest, power, fame and wealth is the reason for the unhealthy internal and external relationships in the lives of the nations. Instead of seeking a cure for this state of affairs upon the only path that leads to the true goal, all the leaders of the lives and activities of the nations are perversely engaged in a fight against this sole principle of salvation. The cure actually lies precisely there where they think that they can find the cause for their troubles, while they seek the cure in that which actually only aggravates the lingering evil. The word "vain" stands next to "muttering", the speculative reflection of the "nations", occupied with the cure for the internal ills of the nations. Here more than elsewhere can one feel in advance the uselessness of the effort to find a lasting and general remedy, and one contents himself with seeking an improvement that is merely temporary and one-sided.

"Anointed", is what David calls himself in his "final words", in which he declares his own significance and that of his hymns and of his house for the moral future of salvation of all of mankind: "The anointed of the G-D of Jacob" (2Sam 23:1 ). 

{Re-interpret all Verses as per TTP1:xx}

HirPsalm 2:2 Vol.1, p.8. 

The kings of the earth stand up,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord, and against His anointed:  

Kings of the earth rise up
and rulers together have set themselves principles
against the Lord and his anointed? 

{For Hirsch's commentary see Verse 1.}
 

HirPsalm 2:3 Vol.1, p.9. 

"Let us break their bands asunder,
and cast away their cords from us."   

"We wish to tear their bands asunder
and cast away their cords from us." 

"To tear away - SG5423" is a forcible separation," "a tearing asunder", as in Judges 16:9. "Their bands - SG4147" is a "limiting bond", bonds that inhibit wilful expressions of strength, thus also "to discipline". "Cord - SG5688" is a cord by means of which the forces of a performance are harnessed; thus also "carriage cords" (Isaiah 5:18), "cords for yoking" (Job 39:13) with which draught animals are harnessed to a cart or plow. The moral law taught by "the Lord and his anointed" imposes limitations and duties, and both of these are repugnant to the nations. They find that such limitations are detrimental to their interest, therefore the sum total of their ambition is "to tear their bands," etc.

HirPsalm 2:4 Vol.1, p10. 

He that sitteth in heaven laugheth,
the Lord hath them in derision.   

"He Who sits in Heaven smiles;
my Master mocks them.

"Sits - SG3427". G-D permits men to engage in lengthy experiments in the carrying out of their plans and in the testing of their understanding and strength, which they overestimate. Without intervening directly, apparenfiy resting, He sits upon His Throne in Heaven, in the Beyond, the dual upper and nether "Yonder" from which the earth receives those influences that condition its evolution. Sitting "in Heaven", G-D "mocks" the endeavors of men; actually "my Master", the common name for G-D as applied to Him by human being who is dedicated to His service and works for his purposes. G-D, holds in His hands the reins of all that exists and all that is yet to be on earth. As ,"Lord", He has informed the nations, through Israel and its spokesman, David, that homage to the Divine moral law is the sole path to salvation. His world order is based upon the eventual victory of all that is moral in the human sphere. He can let men go their own ways, for the final sum total of their experiences will lead them to the realization that the path of immorality and wrongdoing is not the way to collective salvation. "My Master mocks them", His revelation, of which Israel and David {and Spinoza and Einstein} are the bearers, mocks at all attempts to expunge it from the minds of men.

HirPsalm 2:5 Vol.1, p10. 

Then will He speak unto them in His wrath,
and affright them in His sore displeasure:   

But then He will speak to them in His wrath
and will confound them by His indignation: 

"Then He will speak" etc. When the nations and their leaders will one day, by their own experience, come to realize the uselessness of their attempts to seek enduring salvation without paying homage to the moral law, in fact, by leading a life that is in direct contradiction to that law, then G-D will emerge from His silence. Then His wrathful word shall smite them and the awareness of His actual indignation will dismay them. "To tremble", is the over-powering of the emotions, "consternation." See Gen. 45:3. They suddenly became aware of the fact that there is a free, moral, personal Lord over the mechanical and physical world order of their dreams, a Ruler with Whose absolute will they had neglected to reckon. The angry reproach reads as follows:

HirPsalm 2:6 Vol.1, p11. 

'Truly it is I that have established My king upon Zion,
My holy mountain.'

"As for Me, I have long past anointed My King on Zion,
the mountain of My Sanctuary!"  

"As for Me". "In contrast to their endeavors and to the ways and means by which they sought the shaping and determination of the salvation of peoples and nations," says the Lord, "I had indeed shown them long ago, for their guidance, what I mean by 'My King'." Through the institution and anointment of the Dynasty of David upon Zion, the mountain of the Sanctuary of G-D's Law, G-D has recorded in the book of the history of nations the fact that He will regard as His own only that type of leadership of peoples and nations which is based upon allegiance to His Law, to which He had erected His Sanctuary on Zion—Zion, the very name of which "a pillar - SG6725" already denotes memorial for mankind. (See Jeremiah 31:20; Kings II, 23:17; Hezekiel 39:15; See Isaiah 2:4; Jeremiah 30:17). Their entire method of procedure up to now as described in Verses 1-3 was thus one of open disregard of this fact. Indeed it was open rebellion against the will of God.

HirPsalm 2:7 Vol.1, p11. 

I will tell of the decree: 
the Lord said unto me: 'Thou art My son, 
this day have I begotten thee. 

Therefore I wish to recount it until it becomes a law:
The Lord has spoken to me: "You are My son;
I have this day begotten you. 

"Therefore I wish to recount"- SG5608 is primarily the mere "recounting" of facts, ... but not the "proclamation" of laws. Ale - SG413 denotes the movement toward a goal. The thought expressed here is: "Therefore I wish to recount it so long until a basic principle of life for all nations shall be formed from it. I wish to recount the fact of my designation as 'God's King on Zion' so long and so often until it shall become a principle of life, because this fact shall become the basis for the moral conduct of the nations and their leaders."

"You are My son". Just as G-D called Israel, "My son" when speaking to Pharaoh (Exod. 4:22 - Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,) and thus designated Israel as a special creation of G-D in the history of the nations, as a people that, unlike the other nations, had come into being not simply from an interaction of historical influences and events, so G-D now also calls David "My son", as a King among kings. He did not become king by inheritance or by his own action, nor had he attained the throne merely through election by men. G-D Himself had chosen and appointed him king; his kingship was brought about directly by God—it was a proclamation of G-D's will.
"I have this day begotten you". "Unlike other events, your kingship is not merely a consequence of a combination of world circumstances, created and set up by Me, so that it can be attributed to Me indirectly: "Today I have begotten you." David's kingship is a new act of G-D to proclaim His will to the leaders of the nations, just as Israel's historic advent was a new act of G-D for the proclamation of His will for the destiny of the nations.

From Book XXIV:Psalm 2:7

"You are My son." See Psalm 89:28 where G-D declares of David: "I will also appoint him first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth."  

"I have this day begotten you." To be understood in a figurative sense. On the day of his enthronement, the king was begotten of G-D as His servant to guide the destinies of His people. When the throne was promised to Solomon, God gave the assurance: I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son (2Sam 7:14 - I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; ).

HirPsalm 2:8 Vol.1, p12. 

Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance,
and the ends of the earth for thy possession. 

You ask of Me that I shall let the nations of the earth be your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession. 

"You ask of Me". It can be clearly seen from Verses 10 -12 that the terms "inheritance" and "possession" as used here cannot be construed to mean the conquest and subiugation of the nations under the sovereignty of rulers. Homage to G-D and to His moral Law, joyous devotion to Him and to His will, and girding oneself with purity are the demands made upon the rulers of the nations through the fact of the existence of the Kingdom of David. "Inheritance" and "possession", therefore, denote only the spiritual and ethical conquest, the fact that the ideas and attitudes of nations will fall to the spirit and the doctrine of David and shall remain with it. Thus "our inheritance", see Exo 34:9 - And he said: 'If now I have found grace in Thy sight, O L-rd, let the L-rd, I pray Thee, go in the midst of us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for Thine inheritance.'  

"Ask of Me", means: Make the enlightenment and the moral improvement of the nations the obiect of your desires and the subject of your prayers. But the fact that this enlightenment and moral improvement of the nations is conceived of in terms of their devotion to the spirit and influence of David is also a charge to David to demonstrate by his own deeds and his utterances the implementation of God's will in the moral shaping of the lives of individuals and nations. Thus, by understanding and taking to their hearts the word of David, they will simultaneously understand and take to their hearts the will of God.

HirPsalm 2:9 Vol.1, p12. 

Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

But if you must break them with a rod of iron,
then you will smash them to pieces like potter's vessels. 

"Must break" cannot be a positive statement such as, "you will", etc. One does not break and smash to pieces that which has been given him as his inheritance and his possession, "Must break" etc. is rather a conditional protasis {The clause expressing the condition in a conditional sentence, in English usu. beginning with if.}, and "like potter's vessels" etc. is a postscript: "If you will have to break them with a rod of iron, then you will smash them to pieces like potters' vessels." "The subiect and content of your prayers should be that the nations, through quiet and peaceful persuasion, should come to submit to the spiritual and ethical demands made known to them by you. If, however, they will not be receptive in this manner to the realization of the goal of mankind, if it will become necessary to use force to overcome their resistance to God, then they will break into pieces devoid of power, like potters' vessels struck by a rod of iron."  

HirPsalm 2:10 Vol.1, p13. 

Now therefore, O ye kings, be wise;
be admonished, ye judges of the earth.

And now, O kings, comprehend this:
chastise yourselves, O judges of the earth! 

"And now". "And now," says David, "since this is God's design which has been irrevocably proclaimed, "comprehend", then comprehend this, bring it to your understanding. "chastise": submit on your own initiative to the instruction and discipline; submit yourselves to the moral law. You, who, as "judges of the earth" desire to put earthly affairs in order, must first acknowledge the Divinely-revealed moral law as ONE Absolute that stands supreme over you and over all others. Make this law your standard and the guiding principle of your lives and of the lives of the nations that are to be shaped by you." 

HirPsalm 2:11 Vol.1, p13.       Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view.       Scriptural Interpretation.

Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling. 

Serve the Lord with fear
and rejoice greatly with trembling.

"Serve". "Consecrate yourselves to the service of the Lord. Serve G-D with your labors as the princes and rulers of the lives of nations. Let the fulfillment of His will, the realization of His purposes, the bringing about of His kingdom on earth, be the goal of your strivings. "With fear"—in constant realization of His greatness and of the supremacy of His will against which whatever contrary opinions or desires you may harbor shall be bent and shriveled to complete insignificance." See Gen 2:19.  

"Rejoice greatly with trembling". The greatest joy, articulate joy, the most joyous emotion. The tremulous feeling of "brokenness," "trembling", is not the mood in which the Divine service of our endeavors in life should be fulfilled. It is only in serene joyousness that man as a whole blossoms forth and that those energies are liberated which man needs in order to discharge his task. But this unclouded joy is found only "with trembling", in the complete disappearance of any opposition to the will of G-D, in the awareness of the fact that, without G-D, we are nothing and that our being and striving begin to have some meaning only if we permit them to be completely absorbed in G-D and His will. If we attach ourselves to the great sovereign purpose of G-D with our every achievement, great or small, then no contribution of ours, however small, shall be lost, and we may rejoice in it even if it is all that we can achieve in the faithful service of God. "Rejoice greatly with trembling", the "Rejoice greatly with trembling" growing from "trembling" and borne by "trembling" is the greatest bliss of which a creature gifted with intelligence can be capable before his Creator, that a human being can feel before his G-D. 

HirPsalm 2:12 Vol.1, p14. 

Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, 
when suddenly His wrath is kindled. 
Happy are all they that take refuge in Him. 

Gird yourselves with purity, lest He be angry and you perish on the way,  for His wrath might be kindled soon!
Only those stride forward who will put their trust in Him. 

"Lest He be angry" is not a threat of what will happen if the demand of "gird yourselves with purity" is not complied with. "Lest He be angry" is rather the purpose of "gird yourselves"; it denotes that from which they will be spared if they comply with the charge of "gird yourselves"; In order to escape God's wrath and the forfeiture of your goal in life, "gird yourselves".  

"You must gird yourselves with all that is morally pure, and not with wrong and violence, if you wish to avert the danger (Verse 5) that His wrathful reproach might strike you and you might perish through His indignation. Do not tarry before you repent, "His wrath might be kindled soon!", for you cannot know how soon is judgment might smite you."

"And you perish on the way" depicts the fate of whole groups in a manner parallelling the description of the fate of individuals, as shown in Chapter 1:6. For nations and individuals alike, salvation—or any future at all, for that matter—will lie only on the path of the Divine moral Law as desired by G-D and in accordance with the goal of His sovereign rule. It is said for the individual "the way of the lawless shall perish"; that the path of the lawless leads to destruction; the ways of lawlessness will disappear, but men shall remain on earth forever, to reach, by new and pure paths, that bright goal of a life on earth which blossoms under G-D. Of the nations basing themselves on wrong and violence, however, it is said "And you perish on the way", that, by and through their ways, they rush to meet annihilation from the earth, just as many similar nations have akeady come vanish entirely from the stage of history. {See technological advancement.}

This second part of the psalm ends with "those stride forward who will put their trust in Him", just as the first one has begun, and, by the word "who", comprises the individual and the groups. Individuals and nations alike can stride forward to salvation only if they put all their trust in G-D and not in the endeavors in which they cannot count upon the approval of G-D and thus cannot rely on His help. {Re-interpret as per TTP1:3:13}

HirPsalm 6:2 Vol.1, p35. 

O Lord, rebuke me not in Thine anger,
Neither chasten me in Thy wrath. 

O Lord, do not rebuke me in Thy anger,
and do not chasten me in Thy wrath. 

{May there not be another Hiroshima to show that                      Re-interpretation.
there is no world order,
And may we not be condemned to more Hiroshimas
before we get world order.}

HirPsalm 12:6 Vol.1, p86. 

'For the oppression of the poor,  for the sighing of the needy, 
now will I arise', saith the Lord; 
'I will set him in safety at whom they puff.' {Psalm 10:5} 

"For the oppression of the poor,
     for the cry of the defenseless—
now will I arise," the Lord will say one day;                   Millennium
"I shall bring happiness"—this breathes
     forth from Him even now. 

G-D's promise breathes (intimates) toward the end [of time].
Even if its realization should be long in coming, even if it                      A conjecture
should tarry, it is sure to come to pass in the end.  

{Spinoza is a harbinger of the coming, however long it may take,       Re-interpretation
of a One-World Universal Religion—the One-World that is
evolving as it is being organically bound together electronically.}           Conclusion

HirPsalm 92:5 Vol.2, p154.       Rabbi Hirsch's point-of-view.       Scriptural Interpretation.

           For Thou, Lord, hast made me glad through Thy work;                  {JPS}
           I will exult in the works of Thy hands. 
      For Thou hast given me joy in Thy work {done by all modes}, O Lord;
      I will exult in the works of Thy hands {all the modes}.  

The Sabbath teaches us each time anew to understand the entire world with its manifold phenomena as "work of thy hands", one work of the ONE G-D. This thought, even as it is uplifting in its grandeur, also makes us joyfully aware of the harmonious {from the point-of-view of man} unity of all the contrasting phenomena of the universe, contrasts which would rend the world asunder, were it not for the fact that they all represent the work of One Creator {G-D sive Natura}. Moses declares: "And therefore "I will exult in the works of Thy hand" every single event that has occurred in the past and comes about in the present through the work of Thy hands, fills me with pure joy {better is peace of mind}." Work of your hands" (cf. Psa 28:5 - Because they give no heed to the works of the Lord, nor to the operation of His hands; He will break them down and not build them up.) are not only the works of creation, but every act of G-D in both the wonders of nature and the history of mankind. Thus everything that man creates or achieves is also called "work of your hands" (cf. Deu 2:7). So it is also said of G-D "the work of your hands are truth and justice." (Psa 111:7 - The works of His hands are truth and justice; all His precepts are sure.).