HOME
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2015 John D. Brey.

We now come to the problem of the sexual symbolism which, throughout the Kabbalah, is inseparable from the image of the Tsaddik. In terms of the mirroring of the structure of the Adam Kadmon in the human body, the ninth Sefirah not only corresponds to the phallus; it is also, by reason of this allocation, the site of the circumcision, the sign of the Covenant.

Gershom Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, p. 106.

The fact that the uninitiated mind considers bris milah's foundational sign quasi-pornographic [1] seems almost justified by the puzzling oddity that bris milah co-opts the signifier used by the phallic-cults. Bris milah is firmly situated in the zeitgeist of the phallic-cults who worshipped the phallus as the emblem of divinity, the sign of the divine, and the fleshly manifestation of the divine. The explicit difference between bris milah as the central signifier of Jewish monotheism, vs. the pagan's attitude toward the phallus, is best described by Professor Nahum Sarna, who explains that whereas the pagan's tended to endow the things of nature with actual divinity, Jewish monotheism assumes that God wholly transcends the things of nature, which at best constitute some mere manifestation of His glory. [2]

Professor Sarna points out that since Jewish monotheism shared many of the pagan signs which constituted the theological imagery of the time, it's impossible to interpret the Jewish signs without recourse to the meaning they held for the pagans. The Jewish sign is not a, "slavish imitation of contemporary" pagan symbolism. "On the contrary, it displays an originality and independence that transforms it into a wholly new creation, the innovative nature of which can only be adequately appreciated against the background of the classical model." [3]

Bris milah not only inherits, but enhances, the semiotic centrality the phallus already possessed for the ancients.  Raised to these heights, as the sign nearest to the actuality of the signified (the divine), the phallus becomes the fountainhead for signification itself. All other signs and symbols are made pregnant with meaning only after the original word/sign/signifier has risen to take its place as the "foundation" (Yesod) for all further semiotically significant intercourse: "Therefore, in order to name the essential nature of Being, language would have to find a single word [a signifier so close to the signified that it would be . . .], the unique word." [4]

Despite the Jewish transformation of this pagan sign, it can’t be claimed that the pagan deification of the phallus was completely negated in Jewish monotheism. While it's true that Jewish monotheism never relegates God to the natural world, or any sign in the natural world, it's still the case that throughout the writings of the Jewish monotheists, and most specifically the mystical arcanum within the Jewish corpus, the phallus still retains its power as the highest emblem of the transcendent deity who cannot be revealed by, but must be revealed through (so to say), the mediation of a sign. [5]

Inherent to the Jewish position is the knowledge that "mediation" implies something is left behind (something remains unrevealed) in a mediated revelation, since otherwise mediation would be logically, if not theologically, superfluous. Where the phallus has universally achieved it divinized stature, as it has in the theological zeitgeist of the ancients, bris milah functions as the Lacanian blow received by the phallus, when it's elevated from a mere signifier, to the divine heights, as the incarnate signified.

If the pagans endowed the phallus with real divinity, in contradistinction to the sensibilities of Jewish monotheists, then the Jewish monotheist have simply transformed the standard pagan sign of the Presence of divinity into a Jewish one by scathing it, scaring it, bleeding it, and removing the fleshly veil which pagans blindly spy as the incarnation of raw divinity. Jewish monotheists crown the sign of divinity with a thorny, or necrotic scar, signifying the iconoclastic apophasis required to deconstructs pagan symbols so they might be used in a Jewish sign-language.

Within the Saussurian terminology "signified" and "signifier," the logical problem rests on the fact that if the signified (in this case God) were the same as the signifier (say for instance the phallus) then we really don't have a signified and a signifier since being identical would make them the same thing, and thus the duality born of mediation is superfluous. ----- Consequently, if the signified (God) is not the same as the signifier . . . then we have an even larger problem since God's absolute and infinite essence makes it evident that no relative signifier can really say the first thing about the signified (God).

This being the case, the signifier, by its very nature, if it’s truthful, must veil what it purports to reveal. In other word, not actually being the thing it's signifying, i.e., absolute wholeness, it must fall completely short of its revelatory task, and thus it must hide what it purports to reveal, as the only truthful revelatory move directed toward presenting, in absence, what it would so like to reveal. To accomplish its mission, it must therefore rise, and then disappear, its disappearance acting as its most seminal act of signification: it does what it rose to do precisely when it disappears behind the veils it stood to remove.

Part and parcel of the Jewish focus on the phallus as the central signifier of monotheism's negative relationship to the pagan world, is the fact that Jewish monotheism codifies the principle that what is most ancient in the conceptual world of the Torah attains a fundamental and structural superiority based on its antecedence within the unfolding (so to say) of the historical and textual revelation. ---- The creation of "male" and "female," in their profound antecedence, provide a formative framework for examining the metaphysics of duality (the basis of “sign” and “signified”) that we find very early in the creation and design of gender duality.

The early psychologists, most notably Freud, justified gender duality as the prototypical foray into metaphysical dualism when they established the idea that the very foundation of the human psyche is predicated on the initial overcoming of the shock of metaphysical difference reified in the sexual form of the genital organs: the Oedipus complex, the castration complex, penis envy . . . etc. etc.. 

The first metaphysical "difference" a child must negotiate is sexual in nature. When a boy first sees a girl's genitals he's often shocked, imagining, consciously or otherwise, that she's been castrated for some grave offence. Similarly, when the girl sees the male . . . she often feels loss rather than thinking the boy has somehow acquired an unnecessary appendage. Psychology suggests that girls are initially and naturally ashamed of their lack . . . as though they unconsciously understand something profound about the metaphysics of sexual difference.

From these principles the Freudians . . . Jaques Lacan in particular . . . formulated the quasi-theological principle whereby the penis is a reification of a metaphysical "phallus" which is the most fundamental "signifier" in the world of signs, since it's the first instantiation of metaphysical "difference" in the development of the human body and mind. As such, it's the most fundamental element in the culture and civilization developed around the orientation of the human mind. Lacan suggests that since for the young mind the penis is the very first reification of an absolute metaphysical difference (male and female) the penis therefore becomes the quintessential "signifier" upon which all further signification thereafter rises.

Lacan goes so far as to make the phallus the central figure of language itself . . . since it's the penis/phallus which acts as the mediator/signifier of the very first run in with the metaphysical difference which is the life-blood of language. For Lacan and the Freudians, the phallus is less a sign of the "male" per se, and more a sign of "differance" (sic) between male and female. The phallus is the mediator that both separates -- by its presence --- and unites --- by its function, when (in its most seminal function), ironically, it disappears. Lacan labels the line drawn between the "signified" and the "signifier" (in Sassurean nomenclature) the "phallus" thereby exemplifying the nature of that emblem which divides and unites in one fell-swoop. [5]

To the extent that psychology is correct in recognizing the phallus as the quintessential signifier of metaphysical difference ---- i.e., that "signifier" which both causes metaphysical difference by its presence, and unites the different elements by its function, to that extent we can pinpoint the reason for the centrality of the phallus in not only Jewish liturgy and architecture, but in the liturgies, architectures, and religious icons, of most of the religions in the ancient world.

The Jewish writer whose epistles can legitimately be said to have inspired the thinking of Freud, Lacan, and Derrida, i.e., St. Paul, suggested that the woman's organ possessed a sign of the man, while the man's organ, properly understood, is the sign of God. [6] Taking Paul's cue, Freud suggests that the woman possesses a miniature phallic emblem  "veiled" by the biological design of her genitals.  Appreciated from the perspective that human sexuality is often thought of as an anthropomorphic emblem of divine hierogamy, it's ironic that Paul and Freud paint a picture of the phallus as something like the high priest who must transgress the two veils in the temple of the female body in order to engage in the primary act signifying the consummation or marriage of the divine bride and groom.

By suggesting that the woman's emblem is an image of man, while the man's emblem is the image of God, Paul distinguishes between the clitoris and the phallus by implying that the phallus, unlike the clitoris, has a permanent scar received precisely when it's transformed from a sign of a mere manhood (so to say) to the "sign" of God precisely when the manhood is removed. The "sign" of God enters the two veils of the temple (as the high priest of the liturgical hierogamos) only after this high priest has been baptized in his own blood -- bris milah --- since in Pauline parlance, he is both the sacrificial offering, and the high priest doing the offering (not withstanding the separation of the two in Jewish temple liturgy). [7]

St. Paul distinguishes the phallus and the clitoris by the fact that the clitoris represents an uncircumcised man, the natural man, while a proper Jewish organ has a man-made scar, a thorny crown (beneath the natural corona engraved in the flesh by divine fiat). The thorny crown below the God-made corona (the thorny crown formed by the removal of the manhood that veils God’s divinity, i.e., the other crown, the corona) makes the phallus a fitting representation of the divine high priest who would offer his own blood when cut, bled, and figured as dead. ----- Knowingly, or unknowingly, Paul is erecting an image of a high-priest wearing an apophatic crown (of sorts) at precisely the moment he enters into the nuptial chamber of the temple to consummate the union of Creator and created.

The suggestion that God is best represented by a scarred phallus still appears pagan through and through. Whereas to say that God is beyond all representation humans can conceive seems to render theological discourse pointless. Therefore, the Lacanian blow of bris milah (scarring the phallus) pictures God not as an incarnate signifier ready to be spied in nature herself (which is not to say He's not in nature herself) but more like the blood of any signifier which (who) would rise up in order to represent the transcendent God. 

Lacan implies that the phallus goes furthest toward signifying its ability to man the post (so to say) as the un-manifestable God, precisely when it unveils its most seminal purpose in the first act of the play on passions, which is when it disappears behind the veil of pro-creation? ---- In other words, if the female veils are biological signifiers whose transgressing signifies the divine act of pro[to]creation, if they are the veils covering the place of pro[to]creation, then to the extend that biology recapitulates theology, we have a play of metaphors whereby the God-man (the Godhead) the un-hooded manhood ----of God --- transgresses the veils of pro[to]creation, and then disappears behind the veils to represent the fact that despite His invisibility in the act of Creation, and in the products of Creation, His absence actually marks His most seminal Presence.

Put theologically, rigor mortis must set into the gross fallacy of a visible "manifestation" of the invisible Godhead. . . And right on cue the scarred Yesod becomes a stiff at the moment when it will stand in for the Godhead by disappearing behind the veil it destroys as its most important act of revealing itself and its purpose. --- In more opaque terms, it's no mystery that the phallus disappears in the very act it was designed to consummate: the act of procreation, or theologically stated pro[to]creation. The moment Yesod is most present in its seminal purpose it disappears behind the hymen-of-the-morgue, which carnal death, it destroys, as the seminal act whereby it creates true life precisely when it disappears behind the veil of death.

Jewish mystical circles applauded this apophatic drama since even an admittedly wrong-headed symbol of God allows speech concerning the nature of God. By destroying the wrong-headed (the hooded) God-head, and thereby erecting an apophatic discourse about the Godhead, bris milah establishes a meaningful theological dialogue. Without this wrong-headed image of God, which is symbolically destroyed -- because it rises in place of the Living God --- there is only utter and complete silence about God. If God is not like any-thing within creation itself, then there is only apophatic discourse about Him. And there is no more fitting apophatic symbolism than the Jewish practice of bris milah.

As just one example of the elevated heights to which the apophatic image of bris milah has risen, existing as it does as the singular example of the signified and the signifier in one symbol forever, one need only examine the prototypical image manifest throughout religious iconography, and most explicitly, the image central to almost every synagogue, mosque, and cathedral. An idealized view shows the intersection of the corona and the penile-raphe (at the frenular-delta) as it would appear after the foreskin (both layers, flesh and membrane, outer and inner) have been transgressed.                 

The frenular-delta is formed in the flesh of the phallus, where the corona of the phallus (originally covered by the prepuce) is seen to intersect with the penile-raphe. The penile-raphe is a natural suture ---scar ---formed when, during fetal development, the fetal genitalia morphs from the default female form, into the male phallus. This developmental transformation requires the natural welding together of what would otherwise remain the woman's fleshly veils, unsecured by suture. The natural suture leaves a ridge of flesh visible to the naked eye which forms a vertical line which intersects the horizontal line forming a respectable cross where the penile-raphe intersects the horizontal corona.

This image is seminal (so to say) to the design of most mosques, synagogues, and cathedrals. When it's not on the synagogue doors, its often found on the doors of the Torah ark. In many cases the entire altar area forms one giant image of this phallic signifier. As is apparent from the typical images of synagogue doors, and Torah ark doors, this image hidden behind the prepuce of the phallus exercises its most powerful force on the mind in charge of designing the images of the ecclesia or congregation of the righteous.

1. Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 227 and 228, comments on this topic: 

The mystery of sex, as it appears to the Kabbalist, has a terribly deep significance. . . This sexual imagery is employed again and again, and in every possible variation. . . The ninth Sefirath, Yesod, out of which all the higher Sefiroth-- welded together in the image of the King--flow into the Shekhinah, is interpreted as the procreative life force dynamically active in the universe. The holy sign of circumcision is proof to the Kabbalist that within the limits of the holy law, these forces have their rightful place, It cannot be denied that this whole sphere exercises a strong fascination upon the mind of the author of the Zohar. The mythical character of his thought is more strongly pronounced in these passages than in any others, and that is saying a good deal. It is noted that the Zohar makes prominent use of phallic symbolism in connection with speculations concerning the Sefirah Yesod-- not a minor psychological problem considering the authors strict devotion to the most pious conceptions of Jewish life and belief.

2. Vol. 4: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (749). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans:

1. In the OT it is a fundamentally alien and impossible thought that God should have a form open to human perception, or that He should reveal Himself in sensual form. To be sure, there are many references to God as a being which, like man, has a face, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, lips, tongue, arms, fingers, back, clothes, shoes, staff etc.; but this is so obviously figurative that the LXX corrections (→ III, 109) were not necessary to maintain the purity of the concept of God. In none of the many OT theophanies or angelophanies (not even Gn. 18:1 ff. or 32:25ff.) is there a manifestation in full human form of the supraterrestrial beings, and nowhere is there a depiction of the divine form which is seen (cf. Ez. 1:26ff.; Job 4:12 ff.). In the OT the theomorphic understanding of man is more important than the anthropomorphic view of God (→ II, 390 ff.). The presentation in human form does not involve a humanisation. The fire and smoke, storm and tempest, which indicate the personal presence of Yahweh (Gn. 15:17; Ex. 3:2 ff.; 19:16 ff.; 24:17; l K. 19:11f.; Is. 6:4; Ps. 18:7 ff. etc.) also denote the limits which are drawn for the sensual apprehension of the divine. Man is not allowed to see face to face the God whose will is revealed in the Word. This applies even to those specially commissioned by Him (cf. Ex. 33:20, in spite of 24:9ff.; 1 K. 19:11 ff.; Is. 6:1 ff. → πρόσωπον, → ὁράω). The fact that there is no image in the worship of Yahweh (→ II, 381 ff.) reflects the personal and ethical conception which resists any attempt at a sensual objectification of the divine form.

2. In Judaism, too, with its basic emphasis on the transcendence of God, there is no room for positive statements about the form of God.

3. Professor Nahum M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus, p. 136.

4. Heidegger quoted from Derrida's Margins of Philosophy, p.27.

5. E. Käsemann, “Das wandernde Gottesvolk,” FRL, 55² (1957), 146 f.: (found in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament in study of the word "sarx"):

Is the σάρξ of Jesus the crucifixion? But apart from the fact that σῶμα is used for σάρξ in this sense (→ n. 319), one would then have to take the διά, first locally, then instrumentally, and the curtain would have to be regarded as a possibility of entry rather than a hindrance. The last two arguments still apply if σάρξ is taken in the broader sense of the human nature of Jesus. Should one say, then, that the flesh of Jesus had to be destroyed, as the curtain had to be torn, in order that blood might be offered in sacrifice, or in order that Jesus might attain to full divine sonship?³³³ Or is σάρξ the place where the heavenly and the earthly worlds meet, but in such a way that the heavenly world is concealed thereby, and hence the σάρξ of Jesus both conceals and opens access to heaven? If the clause is not a gloss³³⁵ the most likely interpretation is that the way to heaven leads the believer alone past the σάρξ of Jesus, but in such a way that he goes through it to the heavenly High-priest, who on the far side of everything earthly intercedes for him with God, → V, 76, n. 124.

5. Bruce Fink, Lacan to the Letter, p. 159.

6. 1 Corinthians 11:3.

7. Kolel, The Adult Center for Liberal Jewish Learning:

And so the sign of the covenant is not merely a mark on the body which serves to remind Jewish men of their obligation to the covenant. That function could have been accomplished in many different symbolic ways, such as a tattoo, or a piece of jewelry, or even by wearing such traditional garb as tzitzit (ritual fringes on the tallit) or kippah. . .When a Jewish man and woman come together to procreate and produce the next generation, the seed of that next generation of Jews must pass directly through the sign of the covenant."

8. Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, The Circle in the Square, p, 30.

9. On page 1 & 2 of Jean-Luc Marion's, God Without Being, Professor Marion condenses Wittgenstein's deconstruction of natural language:

One must admit that theology, of all writing, certainly causes the greatest pleasure. Precisely not the pleasure of the text, but the pleasure --- unless it have to do with a joy --- of transgressing it: from words to the Word, from the Word to words, incessantly and in theology alone, since there alone the Word finds in the words nothing less than a body. The body of the text does not belong to the text, but to the One who is embodied in it. Thus, theological writing always transgresses itself, just as theological speech feeds on the silence in which, at last, it speaks correctly. . . Theology renders its author hypocritical in at least two ways. Hypocritical, in the common sense: in pretending to speak of holy things --- "holy things to the holy" --- he cannot but find himself, to the point of vertigo, unworthy, impure --- in a word, vile. This experience, however, is so necessary that its beneficiary knows better than anyone both his own unworthiness and the meaning of that weakness (the light that unveils it); he deceives himself less than anyone; in fact, here there is no hypocrisy at all: the author knows more than any accuser. . . that he speaks beyond his means, precisely because he does not speak of himself. Hence the danger of a speech that, in a sense, speaks against the one who lends himself to it. One must obtain forgiveness for every essay in theology. In all senses.