Speech notes:
The Torah is filled with anthropomorphic, human like, descriptions of God. We see examples by the splitting of the sea, by Mt. Sinai, by having names, by what the nobles of Israel saw and continued feasting, by the peak experience of Ezekiel's vision where he beheld, “a form like the vision of man”, by God dwelling in a sanctuary … Here, we’re taught that He’s all over and yet there’s a place where He dwells?
According to a contemporary biographer of the Maimonides, Professor Joel Kramer, how a formless God is described with such form in our most primary religious text is a theological issue which the Moslems laid at the feet of our Rabbis in their lands.
Therefore it is not surprising to see Torah sages in the Medieval Islamic world such as Rabbainu Bachya ibn Pequda and the Maimonides taking such a question very seriously.
In “Duties of the Heart”, Rabbainu Bachya asked why are texts describing God with form far more prevalent than those which warn against ascribing form to God? He compares it to a merchant who settles in an inn. For the merchant, the innkeeper prepares a human sized meal, which was far smaller than the meal he prepares for the merchant’s donkey. Similarly, for the few of more refined understanding a few statements about God having no form suffices, a merchant’s sized meal. Whereas, the unlearned masses, who then made up a larger proportion of the population, require a lot of food, lots of relatable imagery about God.
In “The Guide for the Perplexed”, the Maimonides often employs the Aramaic translation of Onkolos to demonstrate that these anthropomorphisms are metaphorical and not to be taken literally. For example, where the Torah states that God descended on Mt. Sinai, Onkolos reformulates this as “God revealed Himself on Mt. Sinai”.
Why did the Maimonides select Onkolos? I presume that it was because Onkolos predated Islam. With this, the Maimonides was able to demonstrate that we didn’t invent such ideas as an apologetic response to Islam, but rather that they were already inherent to our tradition from beforehand.
The way the Maimonides explains the presence of these anthropomorphisms is that God behaves “as if”. He behaves “as if” He has eyes, ears, nose, mouth, right hand… In other words, He’s formless. But He accomplishes in ways which appear like the work of someone endowed with super human-like faculties.
Similarly, this concept is succinctly mentioned in “Anim Zemiros”, “They allegorize You, but not according to Your reality, and they portray You according to Your deeds.” (see Artscroll Siddur)
Ok. So, we can say of God that any Biblical or Rabbinic description ascribing to Him form is mere metaphor. It solves problems. It gets us out of the very serious problem leveled against us by our Muslim neighbours and saves us from issues of idolatry. However, metaphors can be rather subjective and poetic, having no objective reality. If I were to say that your words are so beautiful that your lips drip with honey, can I bring over a cup and catch the honey? Yet, we find that our tradition seems to ascribe objective reality to what is claimed to be only metaphor. For example, King Solomon constantly repeats that his sanctuary is intended to be a home for God’s name, the Talmud states that at the Pilgrimage Festivals we’re supposed to be seen by God, it seems to matter which name of God Moses employs, man is created in the image of God, Moses turns away from directly facing the Shechinah, etc. These are all real interactions with what’s supposedly only metaphorical. Wait, we don’t have real interactions with Shakespearean metaphors. I can’t please my Wife with a Shakespearean rose. Yet, we seem to have real interactions with God’s metaphors. What’s going on?
Before addressing this question I would like to detour to the topic of God’s Oneness. Rabbainu Bachya ibn Pequda masterfully explains this notion in “Duties of the Heart”. When God tells us that He’s One, He means it very truthfully. Everything we encounter which we call “one” is composed of multiple parts. It’s not really “one”, but rather a multiplicity working together in singular cooperation. Accordingly, it’s merely borrowing the term “one”. When God tells us that He’s One, He really means it. He has no parts whatsoever. He’s absolutely devoid of multiplicity. Obviously, a Being without parts has no beginning, middle or end, for they too are parts. Thus, when we say that God is One, by extension we are also saying that He’s Infinite.
Without parts, limits, God has no form. Any version of a form requires parts to compose it. With this understanding we can have a deeper appreciation for His formlessness.
One of my favorite Tanya teachers, Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson told me, “Do not confuse who God is with how He’s experienced”.
There is God and there are His revelations. While all the anthropomorphisms do not have any reality in God whatsoever, they do have reality in His revelations. Here, in His revelations, there are spiritual equivalents of eyes, ears, hands, nose, names, desires, etc. Here, we can talk of souls as, “a portion of God above”, meaning as emanating from His spiritual light.
In the hierarchy of consciousness, we understand that a plant is more alive than a stone, an animal is more alive than a plant and a human is more alive than an animal. However, this hierarchy does not top off with humans, but rather continues upward into the spiritual levels, incorporating among other entities angels, souls and divine forces.
The anthropomorphic descriptions of God exist as forces in the higher spiritual worlds. Since they are higher up on the hierarchy of consciousness, they are actually more alive than we are. For example, “Shaar HaGilgulim” teaches that before every Jewish soul descends into a biological womb it first undergoes a period of pregnancy within the Shechinah. This includes the souls of converts as well. Since the Shechinah has on its level the spiritual equivalent of a giant womb in which all Jewish souls are gestated and nurtured, doesn’t it stand to reason that the Shechinah is far more alive than we are?
I must be clear that just because God’s revelations manifest spiritual forms does not necessarily mean that they are forms that we can grasp or understand. For example, His spiritual eyes are not eyes as we typically understand. We just know that they can cause increased revelations of divine supervision.
With this we can appreciate that while what philosophers like the Maimonides state about God’s attributes is certainly true, if understood correctly beneath this truth lives a much deeper level, one which teaches us that these are no mere poetic metaphors, but rather actual living realities.
Afterwards: After the speech a couple of friends asked me why I didn’t follow onward to explain the concept that God’s human-like revelations are actually the source of our own human faculties and as their source, more alive and real? For example, God’s revelation of eyes is actually the source of our eyes of flesh and thus, also more alive and real than ours.
I responded that I think the points I already made were much more essential for theological purposes, as they touched on the issue of monotheism amidst imagery. I didn’t want to risk overshadowing those points by overwhelming the audience.
However, their point is well taken and serves as a possible candidate for a future speech if given the opportunity.
————-O————
