A Void of Method Remained, Not of Call

The apostles preached repentance as a decisive door. But it must be said honestly: Their writings do not offer a daily, step-by-step protocol of how to examine actions and emotions, how to educate a new response, and how to verify afterwards if the change has been satisfactory or not. Although they give us the elements—recognizing, confessing, turning, renewing the mind, and producing fruit—they do not gather them into a practical sequence for each day. Possessing a strong oral tradition, they likely did not see an urgent need to write about these practices; furthermore, given the high cost of writing, the challenge of selecting what could be written must have been very strong. Naturally, however, their writings are full of the trace left by a life of holiness in all areas.

This methodological void was filled over time. Each tradition constructed concrete ways to respond to the call:

• In Greek Orthodoxy, by the fourth century, Nepsis (Watchfulness or Sobriety of the mind) developed among the desert monks to map the human mind and apply a “scientific-spiritual” method capable of deconstructing and renewing the spectrum of thought. As in the Jewish tradition, all this was transmitted through the Philokalia, a kind of Siddur or Shulchan Aruch, wherein there was an attempt to write down the main elements of the oral tradition regarding this matter. This allows us to perceive the awareness within this community to supply the need for that space that was being lost amidst the theological debates marking church history. The structure of this meditation, performed daily alone and in absolute silence to carefully analyze the layers of the mind, is as follows:

  1. Diagnosis (logismoi): To renew the mind, one first had to understand how the anatomy of a distraction or a destructive thought functioned. These thoughts could pass through stages: a) Assault (prosvoli): A thought crosses your mind (a grudge, anxiety, judgment, impulsive desire). This is involuntary and neutral. b) Dialogue (syndyasmos): You begin to “converse” with the thought. (“Why did they say that to me at work? It’s unfair, I should have responded…”). Here danger begins. c) Consent (synkatathesis): Your will accepts the thought. You decide to act under its influence or embrace the anger/sadness. d) Captivity (aichmalosia): The thought takes ownership of your attention. You can no longer think of anything else. e) Passion (pathos): The thought becomes an ingrained habit or a trait of your character (neurosis, chronic bitterness, addiction).

  2. Phases of the process:

     • Phase 1- Stillness (hesychia): Stopping the flow of thoughts for a moment. Sitting in silence, one does not yet seek to think about anything constructive, but rather to slow down the bombardment of external and internal stimuli to be able to observe one’s own mind.

     • Phase 2- Watchfulness (nepsis): The person becomes an observer of themselves with God’s help. They watch their thoughts pass without judging them or engaging with them, identifying which stem from their ego, which from past traumas, or from the environment in which they live.

     • Phase 3- Discernment (diakrisis): Evaluating the hidden motivations within one’s mental spectrum: Why did I react with anger today? What fear or pride caused that anxiety? One separates what is genuine and reality from what is a self-justifying illusion.

     • Phase 4- Contradiction (antirrhesis): Instead of dialoguing with the negative thought, the person must actively cut them off. For this, a biblical verse or the Lord’s Prayer is used as a kind of “scalpel” to remove them from those intrusive thoughts and keep them in analysis as if they were an external observer.

     • Phase 5- Change of Mind (metanoia): Literally transforming the analytical frame of reference in which one normally operates. The void left by the destructive thought is intentionally filled with the memory of God, reconfiguring your values based on love and humility.

• In Catholicism, such tradition had been almost lost until Saint John Cassian appeared, also in the fourth century, and reinterpreted the practices of the desert monks into Latin. Thus, over time, the West developed its own scientific and systematic method of mind renewal, with a vast library on the subject, which can be grouped into three currents:

  • The current of spiritual exercises (Jesuits): A militarily structured manual for the mind, created by Ignatius of Loyola in the 16th century, introducing the Particular Examen of Conscience and the Discernment of Spirits. It teaches to map which thoughts come from the ego, which from the devil, and which from God, requiring the daily logging of how many times one fell into a thought in order to “reconfigure” the brain.

  • The mystical current (Carmelites): The exact equivalent of Hesychasm. Saint John of the Cross details in Ascent of Mount Carmel the process of “emptying the faculties of the soul” (Memory, Understanding, and Will). It teaches rigorous steps to untie the mind from psychological attachments and mental images to achieve perfect contemplation or the state of purity.

  • The current of devotio moderna and ascetical devotion: A method focused on the deconstruction of pride and internal dialogue, written by Thomas à Kempis in the Imitation of Christ. It is based on a daily discipline of reading, silence, and the “custody of the senses” so that the world’s stimuli do not alter the soul’s peace.

• In the broad Reformed Catholic world (Protestants and Evangelicals): Until today, in their rejection of all ritualism, we can summarize this meditation process as a special attention to free and direct confession to God in a prayer that is also spontaneous and free, marked by the certainty and conviction of God’s action through the Holy Spirit, holding Jesus as the model to reach.

Although none of these responses should be disregarded, and as a whole, they can provide us with an interesting map of the apostolic meditation we seek, for the moment they make clear that the followers of Jesus and the apostles required practices capable of translating general truth into practical daily life, and that beginning in the fourth century, due to crises they had been facing for years, a process of re-encountering this process began.

Before continuing, it is essential to make a clarification, which we consider the primary cause of the rejection that exists in some circles today toward meditation, due to the poor testimony of many throughout history and the contemplative use given to it in different religions or traditions. The proposal we will address does not affirm that the apostles meditated exactly in the manner we will set forth. We have no proof to say that. Nor does it pretend to recover a supposedly lost secret revealed solely to us. Its starting point is more modest: there are traces in the apostolic writings, in the Jewish tradition that preceded them, and in the Greco-Roman environment that surrounded them, to construct this meditation process that time has hijacked. Following them reveals a common direction: observing what happens inside the human being, judging it in the light of God’s revelation, and preparing or creating a new conduct for him of the unique and special holiness established by the Creator.

The Greco-Roman Era Was a Favorable Context for the Spiritual Care of Man Through Meditation

When we think of Rome as an empire, we usually think of philosophy, administration, and law. However, the apostles’ world was not solely Greco-Roman, but was also crisscrossed by networks of their Jewish culture connected directly to the Pharisaic seat in the temple. There were communities and synagogues in numerous Mediterranean cities, and those networks were relevant to the expansion of the first movements following Jesus.[1] The book Acts of the Apostles repeatedly presents Paul entering the synagogue first and finding there both Jews and Gentiles linked to that environment.

This does not mean that “Rome” had converted to Judaism, nor that all philosophical practices stemmed from it. It means something more precise: Paul lived in a meeting space. He was a Jew, a Pharisee by his own testimony, and at the same time a citizen of an empire where Stoic, Platonic, and popular languages about mastering passions and caring for the soul circulated. Therefore, his world cannot be reduced to a Jew who could not communicate through Gentile language and its axioms, or to him being a kind of Gentile philosopher who rejected all his Pharisaic heritage.

In that Jewish environment, as well as in the Gentile Greco-Roman one, examining oneself each night was not a strange idea. For example, in the rabbinic tradition, Eruvin 13b preserves the exhortation to examine actions already performed and to scrutinize those projected, with the aim of correcting them.[3] Similarly, Seneca describes reviewing his words and actions at the close of the day, not hiding errors from himself with the intention of responding better in the future.[2] The sources are not identical nor necessarily dependent on each other, but they demonstrate that concrete moral examination belonged to the spiritual landscape of the ancient world.

The nightly recitation of the Shema furthermore offered the Jew a natural framework for closing the day before God. Later liturgical forms developed confession, forgiveness, and review of the day more clearly. We cannot simply transfer these late forms to the first century, but we can recognize a continuity: going to bed remembering God’s faithfulness and ordering the heart was not alien to Jewish life. Maimonides, centuries later when compiling the Talmud, formulated a similar test of complete teshuvah: “To find oneself again before the same kind of opportunity and choose differently because of repentance.”[4]

Therefore, it is reasonable to affirm that meditation to transform life would not have sounded to Paul like an exotic Gentile import. What we cannot affirm is his precise method that he practiced regularly. The environment offers possibilities; his letters provide traces; neither replaces the evidence of the actual practice if we had it today.

The Apostolic Writings Left a Grammar of Transformation

Apostolic texts do not present a technical manual, but they do present a coherent vocabulary. Each term illuminates part of the process.

• Reorienting mind and life. The Greek noun metanoia (μετάνοια), normally translated as ‘repentance’, is related to the verb metanoéō: to change one’s mind, repent, adopt another understanding and direction. Its etymology is often summarized as “change of mind,” but biblical usage is not limited to an intellectual idea. The fruit demanded afterwards demonstrates that the turn must invariably reach conduct. It is not merely feeling guilt; it is beginning to think, value, and act differently.

• Carrying thought captive. In 2 Corinthians 10:5 appears aichmalōtízō (αἰχμαλωτίζω), ‘to lead captive’. The image is military: a thought is not allowed to roam as an absolute authority, but is subjected to examination and obedience. The text does not describe a technique of meditation, but it does demand an active relationship with thought at specific moments, where the person can observe it, judge it, and refuse to follow it.

• Renewing to be transformed. Romans 12:2 joins metamorphóō (μεταμορφόω), ‘to transform’, with anakaínōsis (ἀνακαίνωσις), ‘renewal’. Transformation consists not in decorating old conduct, but in allowing a renewed “mind” to discern God’s will. The command is expressed as a present process: the transformed life needs sustained renewal, not just the memory of a past decision.

• Putting off and putting on. Ephesians 4:22–24 and Colossians 3:9–10 use the image of taking off the old man and putting on the new. The verbs belong to the language of clothing: apotíthēmi, ‘to put off or leave’, endýō, ‘to clothe’. The passages describe a decisive break and a received identity; they do not literally say the operation must be repeated every night. However, the image allows for daily appropriation: what old habit tried to clothe me today? What trait of God’s image must identify me tomorrow?

• Straining forward. In Philippians 3:13–14, epekteínomai (ἐπεκτείνομαι) communicates the gesture of a runner stretching toward what is ahead. Forgetting what lies behind is not denying memory nor avoiding responsibility. It is preventing the past from being the limit of the next response. Memory is used for learning, while the direction is maintained toward the goal.

• Disciplining the body. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul uses hypōpiázō (ὑπωπιάζω), an intense expression associated with striking under the eye, within an athletic metaphor. It does not authorize contempt for or harm to the body. The context speaks of training, wherein bodily impulses do not automatically receive command, but are educated to serve a greater purpose.

• Confessing: ceasing to hide. Homologéō (ὁμολογέω) means ‘to confess’, ‘recognize’, or ‘declare openly’; its composition suggests “saying the same thing.” In spiritual practice, it is ceasing to dress up the action and naming it before God just as it is. Confession is not the end of the process, but the point where truth ceases to be avoided.

• Producing fruit. Matthew 3:8 asks for fruit corresponding to repentance. This is the indispensable verification. An inner experience, however intense, does not demonstrate transformation if it is incapable of modifying expressions, decisions, relationships, and habits.

Together, these apostolic traces form a syntax: observing, capturing, renewing, putting off, putting on, training, confessing, advancing, and bearing fruit. We do not know how the apostles brought them together in a daily session, but we do know that their teaching demands something more practical and contemplative than a passing emotion.

The Metanoia Needs a Practice Capable of Spanning All of Life

Here is the central point: metanoia does not fit into one phrase nor can it be exhausted in a single moment. A prayer can mark a true beginning and a confession can open a decisive door. But human life encompasses an immense spectrum of situations, experiences, habits, and emotions. Pride does not appear just once; it manifests at home, at work, in traffic, in conversation, and in silence. Anger changes face depending on the person before us. Fear can disguise itself as prudence, envy as criticism, and the desire for control as responsibility.

How to encompass all that in a single instant? It cannot be done. If metanoia implies a reorientation of the mind and life, then it requires a daily practice that reaches each scenario as it appears. Not to “earn” grace through performance, but to cooperate consciously with the change gifted by the Creator.

Thus, the movement of Philippians 3 is better understood: “forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what is ahead.” It is not amnesia, but direction. Internal review looks back only as long as necessary to learn. Afterward, it directs attention toward the response not yet lived. Visualization, understood soberly, does not create reality through mental power, but rehearses concrete obedience so that, when the situation reappears, the person does not arrive unprepared and has at hand a whole set of emotions and reflections in their favor; through daily repetition, it may even have become a habit.

Holiness and persevering to the end then cease to be ideas suspended in the air. They become observable; for example, when a known provocation reappears and a response emerges that is more faithful and accordant with God’s holiness, thus renewal has touched a real situation.

The Rabbinic Cheshbon Ha-Nefesh

Cheshbon Ha-Nefesh (חֶשְׁבּוֹן הַנֶּפֶשׁ) means ‘accounting’ or ‘calculation of the soul’. It consists of reviewing the day without generalities: locating actions, thoughts, and emotions that did not produce life; naming them with truth, comparing them with the desired response, and preparing a different way of acting.

The root of this Jewish discipline predates its modern formats. Eruvin 13b exhorts examining acts already done and scrutinizing those planned.[3] In the 11th century, Rabbi Bahya ibn Paquda turned the “duties of the heart” into a systematic field of religious life and dedicated a gate to interior examination. His treatment organized thirty modes of self-evaluation.[6] In the 12th century, Maimonides described complete teshuvah situationally: change becomes evident when a comparable opportunity returns and the response is no longer the same.[4] In 1808, Menachem Mendel Lefin published Sefer Cheshbon Ha-Nefesh, with a tabulated method for working on character traits; modern research has shown its relationship with Benjamin Franklin’s examination system.[7]

This history requires precision. Lefin’s table format cannot be projected back onto Paul; it is much later. Neither Bahya nor Maimonides prove what Paul practiced. What they do demonstrate is that Judaism developed, from earlier sources, increasingly evolved and explicit ways of converting soul examination into discipline. This meditation is located on that trajectory, without erasing historical distances.

The six steps that follow organize the practice of meditation for our best understanding. They are not the outline followed by Seneca or the rabbis, but an adjustment in light of what neurological sciences indicate today regarding what must have happened in the apostolic world in its first century. Therefore, they do not replace prayer, community, Scriptures, or Mitzvot, but rather give them a daily space for application and are inserted within these as an effective tool to transform the person who desires to serve and worship God in holiness.

1. Breathing Opens Attention to the Ruach HaKodesh

If we analyze any type of meditation, we will see that all begin by gathering attention. Breathing offers an entry point because it is always present and because it immediately reveals the state of the body, which may be agitated, shallow, held, or calm. In Hebrew and Greek, this entry acquires special resonance. Ruach (רוּחַ) and Pneuma (πνεῦμα) can mean wind, breath, or spirit, depending on the context.[5]

Genesis 1:2 presents the Ruach Elohim over the waters. The verb merachefet (מְרַחֶפֶת) reappears in Deuteronomy 32:11 with the image of a bird fluttering over its young. It does not describe absence, but an active presence over that which has not yet received form.

Genesis 2:7 employs another word, neshamah (נְשָׁמָה), for the breath of life breathed into the human being. It is useful to maintain the difference: breathing, ruach, and Ruach HaKodesh are not mechanical equivalents. Breathing air does not automatically produce a spiritual encounter. Within this proposal, breathing is interpreted as a conscious opening: quieting oneself, recognizing that life proceeds from the Creator, and disposing oneself to the action of the Ruach HaKodesh that reaches every structure of our being.

How to practice it. Sitting in silence, attend to breathing without forcing it. Inhaling, recognize life as a gift and God’s accompaniment through the Holy Spirit. Exhaling, release the need to control the process. Do not chase special visions or sensations. Interior prayer can be very simple: «Ruach HaKodesh (or Holy Spirit), examine me and guide me to the Tzelem Elohim (or Image of God)».

Without this orientation, breathing can remain a relaxation technique. With it, it becomes the threshold of a relational meditation, because the human being who has been born again should not attempt to transform alone, but presents himself before God to be transformed.

2. The Inner Void Is Contemplated as Potential for Change

The earth in Genesis 1:2 appears tohu va-vohu (תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ): «formless and void», without the order it will receive later. Applying that image to the human interior is a spiritual reading we can make, based on a deeper layer of analysis, not a literal translation of the verse nor an assertion that the person is primordial chaos. The illustration is useful because it shows that what is not yet formed in the person is not out of God’s reach, but like a blank book, presents itself before Him to begin its new history.

Therefore, the inner void in this case is not the old man either. The old man is the patterns engraved upon him: habits, interpretations, reactions, beliefs, and desires seeking to repeat themselves. The void is the space left when, for a moment, the person ceases to identify with them. For example, if I can observe my anger, the anger is only a part and does not exhaust all that I am; likewise, if I can recognize a custom, that custom has no eternal right over my future.

Here appears that “blank sheet.” Not an irresponsible negation of the past, but the possibility that the past ceases to dictate the next response. In that process that the prophet Jeremiah 31:34 describes when speaking of God’s forgiveness, and in the consummation by the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:17 of the new creation; the memory marked by sin remains and consequences may demand reparation, but the guilt that was forgiven no longer needs to become identity, but requires rewriting a new present.

How to practice it. After attending to breathing, bring attention to how infinitely we are surrounded by “empty” space, principally in this moment in our interior cavities. Do not fabricate a detailedly complex image; it suffices to perceive that beneath the flow of our thoughts exists ample capacity to create each new quality. And when a label appears—«I am always like this», «I will never change», «that person forces me to react»—recognize it as a voice of the old pattern, not as a prophecy, and simply cut off such thought and return without dialoguing with it to the void that was being perceived.

Before each meditation, a question can be formulated: «If my past did not have the last word, what could God form here?», which would help sever any thought trying to divert you. One responds not with fantasy, but with availability, and remains a few moments without immediately filling the space with explanations. The Ruach moves over what is not formed, becoming the Guide of transformation, which depends not on, nor tries to deny, history, but permits it to receive a new “creational order.”

3. The Outer Void Demands That Change Become Action

Interior transformation is not complete while it remains locked in imagination or in the: «I feel it to be so». The “void” that is equally found outside the individual represents the field of relationships, decisions, and circumstances in which interior change must become visible. There the fruit is tested; it is a kind of blank book parallel to that of his interior.

The Hebrew word tikun (תיקון) means ‘reparation’ or ‘correction’. This meditation designates, therefore, a double task: tikun within the human being and tikun in his way of inhabiting the world. It is not about proclaiming that a person will repair all of creation single-handedly; it is about recognizing that each renewed response can repair something concrete: an unnecessarily harsh word, a broken promise, a habit harming one’s own body, a relationship marked by pride, etc.

The outer void is also potential, because tomorrow is not yet written. The person does not control what others will do, but can prepare the quality of their own presence before any situation. The space between them and others does not have to be filled with the same defense, attack, or flight that has characterized them until yesterday.

How to practice it. Expand attention from within outward toward the real places where action will be needed: the family table, the car, the telephone, work, the community, etc. Ask: «Where must change come out of me?». Afterward, choose an observable fruit. Not «tomorrow I will be holier», but «when they interrupt me, I will listen before responding»; not «I will be more generous», but «I will fulfill this concrete help».

This step prevents meditation from becoming evasion or a conspiracy with what is not wanted. Fruit worthy of repentance belongs to the visible world; therefore, if the interior claims to have changed, but conduct protects exactly the same old pattern, the process has not yet reached its term.

4. The Cheshbon Ha-Nefesh Locates, Names, and Rehearses

Locate without self-condemnation Review the day as a sequence of scenes: Where did my inner state change? Before whom? What word, memory, or fear activated it? What did I do afterward? The question is not «Am I a bad person?», because that generalization paralyzes. The question is «What happened here?». Locating separates identity from the act and permits working with precision.

Name without disguising Here confession—recognizing openly—becomes practical. «I was wrong» may still be too vague; more useful would be: «When they corrected me, I felt my pride threatened, I interrupted and ridiculed the other to regain control». Naming in this way does not seek to humiliate the person, but to withdraw the mist that protects the habit.

Here emotions are also examined. An emotion is not always sin nor an order. It can be information: anger points to a perception of grievance, fear a threat, sadness a loss. The examination asks what interpretation accompanied the emotion and what conduct it produced. Thus it avoids two extremes: repressing every feeling or justifying every action by what was felt.

Contrast with the model The measure is not an «ideal self» invented by the ego. They are the mitzvot (commandments) incarnated in Jesus’ life. Genesis 1:27 presents human being created in the Tzelem Elohim (צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים), image of God; Colosenses 1:15 calls Messiah eikṓn (εἰκών), «image of the invisible God». Jesus therefore offers the living criterion to ask: How does faithfulness, mercy, truth, self-control, and love look in this scene?

It is not enough to imagine a calmer version of oneself if that calm avoids doing justice; nor is it enough to imagine courage if confused with aggression. The contrast must respond to the Creator’s will revealed in the commandments and lived by Jesus.

Rehearse a new response After locating, naming, and contrasting, mentally reconstruct the scene. What already occurred is not changed, but what can occur when a similar situation appears is prepared. Imagine the triggering moment, and bring to the body the sensation of what will occur, the pause, and the chosen response. It is supremely important to understand here that the Nefesh (mind), as well as the body it uses, cannot distinguish whether this type of experience is real or not, so the more vivid that situation is, the more opportunity one will be giving the Nefesh to create the neural networks of that experience. Thus, when the person finds themselves again in the real situation, their body and Nefesh will have the new resources at hand to be used. And in this also something is very important: old neural networks that triggered bad behavior are not eliminated, but are eclipsed by the new ones. So, the more repeatedly and with quality this is done over the same behavior, the more force one will be giving to the new response.

For example: «Today I received a correction and responded defensively. Tomorrow, if it happens again, I will notice the tension in my chest, I will breathe before speaking, I will ask what part of the observation is valid, and I will respond without attacking». The rehearsal must be specific because the old habit is specific too. A concrete reaction is not defeated with an abstract desire.

As we said, old networks are not eliminated, so this exercise does not guarantee the next day will turn out perfect. Its function is to shorten the distance between conviction and conduct. When the situation reappears, the mind has already traveled another possible route. Therefore, if the person fails again, the process is not declared useless, but reviews what occurred with greater precision, details what was lacking, repairs corresponding damage, and rehearses again.

5. Gratitude Prevents Converting Transformation into Self-Sufficiency

After the examination, the person could fall into two opposite errors. The first is condemnation, looking only at the distance between what one is and what one should be. The second is self-sufficiency, believing that technique, discipline, or willpower alone will produce the new man.

Therefore, the gratitude of a child of God corrects both tendencies. Thanks are given to the Creator because the truth could come to light, because forgiveness exists, because a new response opened up, and because change does not depend solely on human energy. Thus, transformation in the Tzelem or into God’s image requires individual participation, but is only received by and as grace.

Neither is it a matter of giving thanks to pretend change has already occurred, as other contemplative currents often pose. It means recognizing that the path is available and that God has provided direction, model, community, conscience, and opportunity to obey. Gratitude replaces the anxiety of «manufacturing myself anew» with the disposition to cooperate with what the Creator wants to form.

How to practice it. Name concrete motives of gratitude related to the examination made: «Thank you because you permitted me to see this pattern», «thank you because my past does not have the last word», «thank you for the opportunity to repair tomorrow». If an action of restitution is pending, gratitude does not cancel it; it sustains it. Thanking for forgiveness while avoiding repairing with neighbor would be another form of evasion.

6. Expectation Orients the Next Day

Meditation ends looking forward. Expectation is not passive illusion nor guarantee that everything will turn out as desired, but active faith. It is expecting a new opportunity and disposing oneself to live up to the change recognized and rehearsed.

This sixth step retakes the illustration of the runner cited by Paul in Philippians 3. The previous day was already examined; now attention stretches toward the Image personified in me, which is what is ahead. That is, a probable scene is chosen and the faithful response is anticipated. The objective is not to control the future, but to arrive at it with intention.

How to practice it. Formulate a brief, verifiable phrase linked to a situation: «Tomorrow, when X situation occurs, I will remember or be Y, and then I will do Z». For example: «When I feel they are not listening to me, I will remember that my value does not depend on dominating the conversation and I will ask a question before defending myself». Thus the rehearsal prepares, the Ruach guides, and I grow in the real situation.

The structure closes with a meaningful symbolism. The human being is created on the sixth day (Genesis 1:26–31). The Hebrew letter vav (ו) has the numerical value six and its name is related to a hook or peg, an image that allows thinking of connection. From that symbolic reading, six steps form the body of a meditation for the human being: a practice that seeks to connect the interior with the exterior, intention with action, and what is received from God with what is lived on earth.

This must be presented as symbolism, not as historical proof nor as a rule that obligates God. Gematria does not prove that the apostles used these six steps. It functions here as a pedagogical signature: the number of the day of man and the vav that links recall the complete purpose of the practice.

The Six Movements at a Glance

1. Breathe: Quiet the attention and present oneself consciously before the Ruach HaKodesh.

2. Open the inner void: Stop treating the old pattern as an inevitable identity and receive the potential for change.

3. Look at the outer void: Choose where the transformation must become observable fruit.

4. Do Cheshbon Ha-Nefesh: Locate, name, contrast with the mitzvot lived by Jesus, and rehearse a new response.

5. Give thanks: Recognize the Creator as the source of forgiveness and change, without evading the necessary reparation.

6. Expect: Orient the next day with a concrete response and depend on the Ruach in the real situation.

The Traces Are Enough to Propose, Not to Invent Certainty

As stated, we do not claim to reward ourselves by saying we discovered or received by revelation that the apostles practiced these six steps. The sources do not permit that conclusion for us or for anyone. The traces, however, are real: the metanoia that demands reorientation, the thought taken captive, the renewed mind, the old man that is put off and the new one that is put on, the athlete who trains and extends himself, the confession that names, the fruit that verifies.

Those traces bring us to a daily, concrete, and verifiable practice. Repentance ceases to be reduced to a phrase to become a way. The review of the past does not seek to imprison the person in what they did, but to discover the exact point where a new response can begin. Visualization does not replace obedience, but prepares it. Breathing does not substitute the Ruach, but disposes attention to receive its direction. And the void is not worshipped, it is contemplated as the place that the past no longer has the right to occupy.

This model can also dialogue with contemporary language about habits, attention, and mental rehearsal. But that dialogue does not by itself prove a doctrine nor convert every affirmation presented as «neuroscience» into truth. Meditation is not of the exclusive use of God’s children; that is why it cannot be seen as something miraculous belonging only to them—it is like a spring of water that everyone has access to. Although in God’s hands and gifted to his people in devotional times, it can be truly miraculous. For this reason, in today’s world, we will hear many say that meditation did them incalculable good and others express their disappointment, because it is within everyone’s reach.

The theological basis of this proposal remains another: The Creator calls, forgives, renews, and produces fruit; while the human being responds through an honest, sustained, and actualized practice. A holy man will only be achieved if meditation is in God’s hands.

Author: Liber Aguiar

Although there are many traces throughout the Apostolic Writings, the Book of Revelation by John in particular shows as part of its structure that synagogue liturgy after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. This event was God’s opportunity to implement all the updates given by the Messiah regarding the jukim and the liturgical system designed by David, which had been implemented throughout the history of the temple and synagogues.

Thus, starting from chapter 4, one can see elements like the Amidah, Keriat HaTorah, Tachanun, etc. This book is not a Sidur in itself, but it illustratively bases itself on the elements or sections that constitute the Sidur lived by the apostles and the churches of Asia Minor to which it was written.

For example, studying the Gospels might raise a question regarding the topic of liturgy: If Jesus taught a standing Tefilah that by its nature substitutes the Amidá does that mean his eighteen blessings and all their significance became obsolete? Much speculation could arise, but upon reaching Revelation 4:8-9, the Kedushah (third blessing of the eighteen and the most important of all) appears in the midst of celestial worship, confirming that by the time of the churches in Asia Minor, they understood the significance of Kedushah and its importance. Moreover, the absence of the complete Amidah speaks to the strength of their oral tradition, which required no explanation for its absence.

Therefore, just as studying the Book of Revelation by John is important for understanding the Sidur, the practical application of the Sidur under Messianic updates will also facilitate the study of this book.

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar.

Starting from the concepts of Personal Devotion and Congregational Devotion, we must understand that historically there has been a type of liturgy for each. In the case of personal liturgy, we could say it follows a basic scheme, whereas congregational liturgy includes additions and privileges for that special moment. However, this leads to a question: What is the minimum number of members for a congregation?

The word used to refer to this minimal group representing the congregation is the Aramaic Minyan (מניין), which means ‘quantity’. However, the reference we have today to understand this number comes from Talmudic rabbinic writings, where it is assumed to be the number of ten men over the age of 13.

This creates confusion because most assume that during the time of the apostles, the Minyan was understood in the same way. However, we must clarify that the only record we have from the 1st century regarding this number is found in Matthew 18:20, which is an older text recording the reliable teachings and conclusions of the Messiah. Though this text speaks of Havruta pairs, the writer uses a broader principle to apply it to what constitutes that “quantity” (Minyan), where two or three gather or synagogues to pray (Tefilah), in harmonious melody. This underscores that in Hebrew thought, the synagogue service, lacking sacrifices, is collectively termed Tefilah (‘prayer service’ תְּפִלָּה, ‘supplications’ פִּלְלוּל).

It could also be that the Talmud is correct and no such debate existed, but the apostles defining it as two persons shows a distinction. This distinction cannot be arbitrary because there was always respect for what was well done, even by Jesus (Matthew 23:3; Acts 23:5). Thus, there had to be a new update of the term as part of the jukim the Messiah had established.

Therefore, there are prayers, supplications, petitions, and thanksgiving to be offered on behalf of an individual and those to be offered on behalf of the community of faith (in Minyan). For example, the Torah reading is done on behalf of the congregation only on the second and fifth days of the week, each Sabbath, Rosh Chodesh, and during the Moedim. When someone is invited to lead the Baruch, by the Shaliach Tzibbur or by the Gabai, it is not as an individual but as part of a congregation of faith, joined by others responding: Baruch Adonai Jam’vorach Leolam Vaed (Blessed be the Lord, who is blessed forever and ever). Similarly, in the Amidah, when said quietly, it represents the individual, but when said aloud (Hazara), each individual represents the community of faith to which they belong. The same applies to the Kaddish, which is said only in Minyan, as it is a praise that always reminds us that we are part of a community and that there are things that can only be experienced as part of it, hence depending in many ways on that congregation.

Why is this remnant representing the congregation counted as men and not women? Because a woman represents personal and spontaneous prayer, as Hannah did, while a man represents society and formalism, as David did. A woman represents private and silent power, while a man represents public power. This is not a law but part of the liturgical form of service under normal conditions. However, it should be clear that although there were very influential women with marked leadership in the history of the nation of Israel (such as Miriam or Deborah), they never formed part of the cultic liturgy of the community but fulfilled other leadership roles, even over men.

[1] Talmud, Berachot 6a

[2] Havruta is the Mishnaic word referring to companions gathering for study in debate, under principles of harmony and love.

[3] Term used by Matthew (συνηγμένοι) in Jewish Koine Greek referring to a synagogue-style gathering, hence its infrequent use in secular Greek.

[4] The word symphonesosin (συμφωνήσωσιν) used by Matthew refers to a ‘harmonious or melodious singing’ during Tefilah. It gives rise to our modern word ‘symphony’.

[5] The number 2 holds various biblical meanings: It symbolizes union and separation, contrasts and parallels, and the minimum accepted witnesses.

Most people do not know or do not associate that during the period of the temple there were already synagogues, not only for those in the diaspora, but for all Jews wherever they were, including Jerusalem, where it is said there were around 400 of them. On the other hand, it is also good to point out that, although today we identify this name Synagogue (συναγωγῇ) as something exclusive to the Jews, it is actually the Greek word for any kind of assembly, which made it very common in the first century. Thus, setting aside any historical prejudice that has persisted to this day, in the time of the apostles any place or gathering of Christians would be called by the same name.

For those influenced by the faithfulness of the God of Israel, synagogues were places of study and worship, which functioned in parallel with the service in the temple with sacrifices of animals and also of lips. They began to be established from their surroundings and spread throughout the empire, even reaching some areas beyond those boundaries.

Although the most special day to gather in them was Shabbat, the doors were open during the week for the evening, morning, and afternoon sections, as is still the case in most synagogues today. These synagogue services, being parallel to the sacrifices, tried to follow a liturgy parallel to that authorized by Pharisaic leadership, as was done in the temple. Therefore, once the temple was destroyed, it was easy for them to update this function and at the same time maintain control over them.

Thus, not only through the temple, but also through these hundreds of places of worship, the vision of a priestly nation that mediated for them, the nation of God and the whole world, was maintained. How was this social concept made real? First, imagine a people where the majority attend a permanent place to study about God, where worship services are held three times a day throughout the week, with one (Shabbat) being mandatory for all. On that day, unlike the others, there was included a reflection or exhortation exegesis of what God teaches applied to daily life (the D’rashá). Apart from the official priestly system of the temple, the synagogue had a structure of leaders (Gabaim) in all regions and also an opportunity for official priestly service. All the team in some cases alternated in different services to be highly efficient and, at the same time, have availability to cover their personal affairs.

How was it economically sustained not only to those who officiated but to an entire nation occupied in worshiping God? The only way to do it is “organically” or naturally. We can imagine people who have their jobs (2 Thessalonians 3:10), but also the freedom and flexibility to attend a public worship service at any of the three times of the day, and if they could not do it they also had the individual order that is the essence of that public Sidur, which helps them to harmonize in form and schedule with all the other members of the nation. Women, on the other hand, had the freedom to attend those services they could, with fewer commitments than men but with equal freedom, so they attended some services and others not; while on Shabbat they made sure to go for sure to worship together to God.

When the destruction of the temple came, and synagogue gatherings were not allowed in many places, those who did not receive the Messiah faced a challenge that Jesus’ followers would not have: How to replace the leading function of the temple once it had been destroyed? The psalms, prayers, supplications, and prayers (spiritual songs) already had them, so only a reason would have to be sought for the people to understand that they had to set aside nostalgia and concentrate on not losing their faith and traditions. So some sections, prayers, and readings were added, plus that perspective of: “It’s not that we don’t want to sacrifice in the temple, but we can’t.” This task was carried out by groups of rabbis known as the tanaim and amoraim (between the 1st and 5th centuries), who began to write, implement, and update the new oral tradition that would include the new Sidur.

During all that period, in the case of Jesus’ followers, the sacrifices as part of the jukim had already been updated. So, when they attended a synagogue, their beliefs were not contradicted in any way. Initially, Christians gathered on Shabbat like the rest of the Jews (Acts 15:21), and in those regions where most synagogue members were not messianic, they also used Sunday to touch His teaching and walk in His updates. However, in places where the majority received Jesus, they did this in every service of the seven days of the week.

The persecution of the Jews first, involving them as a result of the 66 AD revolts, then the persecution of them led by Bar Kojba for not joining his struggle, the lack of leaders who knew and could teach the Sidur in the face of the giant wave of Gentiles approaching the faith, and as a climax, the need to adjust Christianity to the legal demands of Roman law made it increasingly lost that Sidur that accompanied worshippers of God for centuries; appearing a liturgy more in line with their present need of an institution under Roman law.

After ten centuries and as a rejection of that new ritualism manipulated by the clergy, capable of hosting and developing an entire Christianized pagan culture, the Reformation arose. This last one helped to return to spontaneous prayer, but not to the Sidur under which Jesus and the apostles lived.

As has been said in other articles on this blog, in the same way that there was a Sidur or order for prayer in synagogues, there was also an order in the organization of the venue. This reminded and illustrated in the minds of worshippers and biblical scholars the structures of the tabernacle and the temple. Later, Christianity, when allowed by the empire to construct worship buildings, assumed an almost similar form, but tried to mix it with the theme of the cross and its dominant vision about the new institutionalized “priesthood”, in addition to taking advantage of the structures of pagan temples and others for this. The following three schemes help in a succinct way to see the differences and their parallels:

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar

Why would a 1st-century Sidur be different from what has been done in history from the 3rd century onwards until today?

It must be understood that there exists an official Christianity that has persisted to this day, but gradually, with archaeological advancements, inscriptions, and ancient texts that have emerged, a clearer vision of the substantial change in church liturgy that occurred during this time has emerged as well, producing a liturgy that has arrived and now completely imposes itself separate from apostolic reality. As we have seen in other articles on this Blog (see it here), it does not condemn most people to hell, because it can be classified as a development of spontaneity, even if its pedagogical and cooperative function in the harmonious worship of a community of faith is not fully utilized. And this is without counting those cases where they simply followed a pagan model of worship, turning their liturgy into yet another strange cult.

Where does this order come from that tries to rescue the Way Up Sidur?

The order that the church followed in its beginnings and that we try to rescue in the Way Up Sidur was transmitted from ancient times through oral tradition. This is why we cannot find among the Apostolic Writings a letter or book detailing the Sidur they followed, because it was part of their oral tradition. Of course, we will find traces of it among their writings, although not a Sidur as such.

Why did none of them make a Sidur to facilitate the permanence of that liturgy in the church?

There are two main reasons: Priority and oral tradition. Remember that making a book in apostolic times was very expensive, until centuries later the printing press appeared [1]. So the sections, prayers [2], and everything that formed the liturgical order was done from memory, since from childhood they repeated it every day and transmitted its details orally. This form of transmission through oral tradition in their time was so developed that it had its own laws and was not simply a matter of word of mouth. What undermined this were the subsequent social conditions of persecution and rapid growth where weeds were more prolific than wheat. Note that one of the few failures in terms of this oral transmission as a system was Christianity; because Judaism and most Semitic peoples have continued to use this methodology of educational and cultural transmission very effectively to this day.

On the other hand, in biblical times as until today, there were people specialized in liturgy, called Shaliaj Tzibur, or ‘apostles of the congregations’, who were so important that it was even said that a Shaliaj in a congregation, if there was only a budget to hire one person, was more important than someone who knew Scripture (a rabbi).

Before continuing, it would be good to clarify that the same people who preserved Scripture for centuries also preserved this oral tradition. It was not until the gospel reached the Gentiles in large numbers and the neo-Pharisees began to manipulate that tradition (after the 2nd century) that the oral tradition began to be discredited among Jesus’ followers. Interestingly, textual criticism today has shown that even the written tradition is not entirely reliable, when just in the so-called New Testament we have more than 250,000 textual variants. So, historical research and comparison with Scripture will be key to rescuing that oral tradition and bringing it to Scripture. However, what we are doing does not disqualify the oral tradition, because there will always be much that is impossible to put on paper and will continue to be transmitted from mouth to mouth.

As an interesting fact, it should be added that the new Pharisees, as a consequence of their new status of exiles and not to lose that tradition, were forced at the end of the 3rd century to write a reduced part of the oral tradition in what is known as the Mishnah, of which none of these reduced manuscript documents has reached us but rather late copies made from the 9th century of it [3] in its Talmudic version. On the other hand, the Sidur of these Jews began to be written later, perhaps by the 3rd century based on the data provided by the Mishnah itself. Copies of it have reached us very late as with the case of the Mishnah. However, in Christianity we have no indication that this oral tradition transmitted by the apostles had a similar process and was written in order to preserve it, which contributed to its almost complete disappearance until today. The closest thing to that are the descriptions made by Hippolytus of Rome of baptism or some homilies about Easter and hymns by Ambrose, where rather some practices of their congregations are being described with a more apologetic purpose against the social criticisms made to them. Everything else is isolated details of some of their religious practices. Of course, thanks to today we can unite all that we can see a harmony in what the church did in its first centuries with Judaism, although with time and little by little they were separated.

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar

[1] The printing press began to be used for book publishing in the medieval period (1440 AD) by Johannes Gutenberg.

[2] What the apostles called “spiritual songs”.

[3] Codex Kaufmann, Codex Parma, Cairo Genizah Manuscripts.

Adquiera nuestro Sidur

Aquí

Why would a 1st-century Sidur be different from what has been done in history from the 3rd century onwards until today?

It must be understood that there exists an official Christianity that has persisted to this day, but gradually, with archaeological advancements, inscriptions, and ancient texts that have emerged, a clearer vision of the substantial change in church liturgy that occurred during this time has emerged as well, producing a liturgy that has arrived and now completely imposes itself separate from apostolic reality. As we have seen in other articles on this Blog (see it here), it does not condemn most people to hell, because it can be classified as a development of spontaneity, even if its pedagogical and cooperative function in the harmonious worship of a community of faith is not fully utilized. And this is without counting those cases where they simply followed a pagan model of worship, turning their liturgy into yet another strange cult.

Where does this order come from that tries to rescue the Way Up Sidur?

The order that the church followed in its beginnings and that we try to rescue in the Way Up Sidur was transmitted from ancient times through oral tradition. This is why we cannot find among the Apostolic Writings a letter or book detailing the Sidur they followed, because it was part of their oral tradition. Of course, we will find traces of it among their writings, although not a Sidur as such.

Why did none of them make a Sidur to facilitate the permanence of that liturgy in the church?

There are two main reasons: Priority and oral tradition. Remember that making a book in apostolic times was very expensive, until centuries later the printing press appeared [1]. So the sections, prayers [2], and everything that formed the liturgical order was done from memory, since from childhood they repeated it every day and transmitted its details orally. This form of transmission through oral tradition in their time was so developed that it had its own laws and was not simply a matter of word of mouth. What undermined this were the subsequent social conditions of persecution and rapid growth where weeds were more prolific than wheat. Note that one of the few failures in terms of this oral transmission as a system was Christianity; because Judaism and most Semitic peoples have continued to use this methodology of educational and cultural transmission very effectively to this day.

On the other hand, in biblical times as until today, there were people specialized in liturgy, called Shaliaj Tzibur, or ‘apostles of the congregations’, who were so important that it was even said that a Shaliaj in a congregation, if there was only a budget to hire one person, was more important than someone who knew Scripture (a rabbi).

Before continuing, it would be good to clarify that the same people who preserved Scripture for centuries also preserved this oral tradition. It was not until the gospel reached the Gentiles in large numbers and the neo-Pharisees began to manipulate that tradition (after the 2nd century) that the oral tradition began to be discredited among Jesus’ followers. Interestingly, textual criticism today has shown that even the written tradition is not entirely reliable, when just in the so-called New Testament we have more than 250,000 textual variants. So, historical research and comparison with Scripture will be key to rescuing that oral tradition and bringing it to Scripture. However, what we are doing does not disqualify the oral tradition, because there will always be much that is impossible to put on paper and will continue to be transmitted from mouth to mouth.

As an interesting fact, it should be added that the new Pharisees, as a consequence of their new status of exiles and not to lose that tradition, were forced at the end of the 3rd century to write a reduced part of the oral tradition in what is known as the Mishnah, of which none of these reduced manuscript documents has reached us but rather late copies made from the 9th century of it [3] in its Talmudic version. On the other hand, the Sidur of these Jews began to be written later, perhaps by the 3rd century based on the data provided by the Mishnah itself. Copies of it have reached us very late as with the case of the Mishnah. However, in Christianity we have no indication that this oral tradition transmitted by the apostles had a similar process and was written in order to preserve it, which contributed to its almost complete disappearance until today. The closest thing to that are the descriptions made by Hippolytus of Rome of baptism or some homilies about Easter and hymns by Ambrose, where rather some practices of their congregations are being described with a more apologetic purpose against the social criticisms made to them. Everything else is isolated details of some of their religious practices. Of course, thanks to today we can unite all that we can see a harmony in what the church did in its first centuries with Judaism, although with time and little by little they were separated.

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar

[1] The printing press began to be used for book publishing in the medieval period (1440 AD) by Johannes Gutenberg.

[2] What the apostles called “spiritual songs”.

[3] Codex Kaufmann, Codex Parma, Cairo Genizah Manuscripts.

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar

The Hebrew root “sdr” (סדר) means ‘order’, while the pronunciation “sidur” is primarily related to ‘liturgical order’. Additionally, it’s important to clarify the Hebrew term “Tefilá”, which means ‘prayer’, encompassing a series of supplications, praises, Scripture readings, and petitions within a specific section of the liturgy bearing this name. This term can refer to the Sidur broadly, such as the morning or evening prayers, and even to a singular prayer like the Amidah. Therefore, in certain contexts, it is preferred to translate it as ‘devotional time’.

In this debate, historically and biblically, the devotional has an spontaneous expression that depends on the human need to praise and communicate with the Creator, regardless of a formal order. Nevertheless, the majority who have had a relationship with God have also used a formal order for their devotional time, whether personal or communal.

It is important to mention that in situations where performing the devotional in a specific formal order is not possible, spontaneous expression becomes the correct and indispensable model. For example, if there is persecution or prohibition, spontaneity becomes essential. However, if the goal is to learn, discipline oneself, and not settle into a routine, it is advisable to follow an order that has arisen from one’s relationship with God, inspired even by Him and approved by the Messiah.

These arguments also address the question of which model is best to follow. Although aspects of a model in accordance with divine commandments will be detailed in other articles, the spontaneous form of worshiping God is fundamental, which invalidates any disqualification of a particular formal model. There are models that align more closely with divine values, but judging those who choose other models is unwarranted.

It is relevant to mention that alongside spontaneous or ordered expressions, there are personal and congregational devotions. In an ordered format, personal devotion has sections with distinct steps, while congregational devotions add, remove, and modify steps. Finally, it should be noted that there are specific orders for special appointments appointed by God (moadim), applicable to both personal and congregational devotions.

Considering all the above, the Way Up Foundation has edited a Sidur that approaches the ancient form of worship and follows the evolution that the followers of Yeshua (Jesus) would have followed in this regard. So stay tuned for its publication.

Author: Dr. Liber Aguiar