Here's a paper I did for Theology class; it's a little rough, but it was a pleasure to write.
On the Plausibility of the Logos
A persuasive essay offered to Jews
for the plausibility of the Logos
via Emanation and Corporeality
Systematic Jewish Theology has given sound orthodoxy regarding the nature of God. He is One; He is Infinite; He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Yet can Rabbinical Orthodoxy adequately explain God's singularity, and incorporeality, in the context of the Bible?
Jewish theology today hangs heavily on Maimonides (1135-1204) and his thirteen principles. Maimonides lived contemporaneously with both Christian and Muslim philosophers and thinkers, at a time when codified statements of faith were in vogue. In the modern day Koren Siddur (Jewish prayer book), the principles are found directly following the Ten Commandments of Moses. Orthodoxy for the Jewish religion is defined by adherence to these thirteen principles, as much as heresy is equated with the failure to hold them (pg1). These principles act as the modern Jewish statement of faith, establishing important doctrines such as God's nature, the Torah's divine revelation, Moses's prophetic supremacy, Resurrection, and the Messiah's coming. The first five principles (and arguably the tenth) deal directly with God's Nature, and as such can be taken as the Jewish treatise on Theology Proper.
Each Principle establishes directly or indirectly an attribute of God. All the Principles have the same opening clause, asserting “perfect faith,” stressing the gravity of the belief.
1. I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, creates and rules all creatures, and that He alone made, makes, and will make, all things. (1, 203)
The first principle speaks of Preeminence, Sovereignty, and (indirectly) creation ex nihlo. Here Maimonides asserts that nothing precedes God, and God owes His existence to no other thing. Furthermore, in the present tense, He “rules all creatures,” and “makes... all things,” which speaks of active sovereignty, rejecting a deist position. Lastly, that God “will make” new things in the future infers either ongoing creation, eventual recreation, or both.
2. I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is One; that there is no oneness like His in any way; and that He alone is our god who was, is, and ever will be. (1, 203)
Two points are actually enumerated here: the Unity and Permanence of God. God is uniquely “One,” in a way that no other being or thing is. What is composed of “parts,” by necessity is finite, subject to decomposition. Therefore, God's exclusive eternality is implied here. The second statement asserts His past, present, and future relationship to humankind, specifically Israel.
3. I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is not physical, that no physical attributes can apply to Him, and that there is nothing whatsoever to compare to Him. (1, 203)
To be physical implies a particular location, and divisibility of “parts.” Therefore, If God were physical, He could not be omnipresent, and therefore not infinite. The last two clauses imply God's unsearchable grandeur, in that being infinite He cannot be expressed completely through finite means, whether physical attributes, or anything at all that is not Himself. God is uniquely the only comparable being to Himself, which is to say, as the 2nd principle, He is One.
4. I believe with perfect faith, that the Creator, blessed be His name, is first and last. (1, 203)
Simple and short, yet again stressing transcendence and permanence. Nothing precedes God, and nothing will “outlast” Him. He totally and completely encompasses everything else that is, material and immaterial.
5. I believe with perfect faith, that the Creator, blessed be His name, is the only one to whom it is proper to pray, and that it is improper to pray to anyone else. (1, 203)
Here, after detailing His Nature, Maimonides clarifies positional relationship between God and man. Firstly, that God alone is worthy of praise (which is a capacity of prayer), and that no foreign gods, angels, or men are worthy of the reverence due the Creator. Secondly, though, there is inferred a direct means of communication between man and God, protesting the practice of using “saints” or angelic beings as intermediaries in prayer and petition.
Yet the principles of Maimonides do not reflect the unanimous theological position of Rabbinical Judaism; neither those beforehand, nor afterward (2, 2). Indeed, they “did not put an end to the discussion regarding the fundamentals of Judaism, but rather propelled later thinkers into new discussion on the very topic which Maimonides thought that he had closed” (2, 3). And so while today these principles are held to be orthodox, they have been opposed, and even “attacked mercilessly” by other Rabbi also held to be authoritative (2, 15). Various interpretations of the Torah, with its history and its language, have produced ongoing debate.
With regard to God's Nature, as is revealed through the Tanakh, three of these principles (the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th) do not adequately explain one unique scriptural Phenomenon; namely the “Angel of the LORD” seen throughout Israel's history in the Torah. This Angel reappears in various accounts, acting uniquely and specially as God's most valued Envoy. 14th century Jewish Rabbinic authority R. Nissim Gerondi believed that this one particular Angel is distinct, in that prostration as a form of worship is permitted before Him. Nissim cites Joshua 5:14, where Joshua bows before this “Angel of the Lord,” who accepts the gesture of worship (prostration being one of the four methods of worship as detailed in the Talmud) (2, 84). God will not share His glory with another (Isaiah 42:8), and so angels who act directly and obediently to God's will, would not accept worship. So why then does this Angel accept the worship?
“It is because this angel in some ways shares an aspect of God's divinity that is treated differently from the other angels. As R. Nissim puts it, 'Prostrating before him is as if one is prostrating before God.'” (2, 84)
This particular Angel, of whom God says, “My Name is in Him,” is given special authority. The language even seems to attribute single actions to both this Angel and God, as if confusing the distinction between the two. Exodus 23:20-23 says,
“Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.” [emphasis added]
He makes many corporeal appearances in various other passages as well. He interacts with Hagar (Genesis 16:7-14), Balaam (Numbers 22:22-38), and Manoah along with his wife (Judges 13:3-22); all whom identify this Angel as God Himself. Even the Patriarch Abraham meets this Angel, eats with Him, and refers to Him as YHWH (Genesis 22:11-15).
It is not only humans which recognize Him, but this Angel also self-testifies to His own Deity. In Exodus 3:2-4, the Angel of the LORD appears in the flames to Moses, and then speaks saying “I am the God of thy father.” And again, in Judges 2:1-3, He claims responsibility for leading Israel out of Egypt, and takes ownership of the covenant. He tells Jacob, “I am the God of Bethel” (Genesis 31:11). He shows Himself to Gideon, calling Himself God, and accepting a sacrifice as God. Gideon then fears for his life, because he was in God's presence, “face to face” (Judges 6:11-23).
How then can this be reconciled with Maimonides' principles? If the Angel were God in a form, then Maimonides' third principle is contradicted, again insisting God's complete disassociation from material substance. And if the Angel is somehow “also” God, it would infringe upon the second principle, testifying to God's Unity and Oneness.
Concerning with the third principle, it should be noted that whether or not God has a bodily form has been suspect throughout Jewish tradition. “The notion that God is incorporeal was not always a unanimously accepted Jewish (or Christian or Muslim) view” (2, 47). Christianity's first theologian, Origen (ca.225) wrote,
For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood — whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies — a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching. (cite)
The causes for such confusion tend to be rooted in the whether or not a literal reading of the Tanakh is appropriate.
Much of Scripture refers to God poetically through anthropomorphisms (attributing human/finite imagery), anthropoieses (attributing human/finite activities), and anthropopathisms (attributing human/finite thoughts and emotions). When Deuteronomy 33:27 speaks of God's arms, it is purely a literary device, metaphorically assuring God's strength and protection will not fail. The same is true when the Scriptures cite God's Wings, or when God “repents,” which is impossible actually for an unchanging, immutable, infinite God.
Yet these poetic metaphors are not the argument for corporeality. Rather, the interactions God has with mankind; specifically the Angel of the LORD, and the images seen by Moses and the prophets.
Isaiah saw God enthroned in a vision; Ezekiel also was given a vision of God. In Ezekiel chapter 1, he makes numerous comparisons, struggling to accurately describe what is indescribable.
And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake. (Ezekiel 1:26-28)
However, the 3rd Maimonidean principles emphatically asserts that God cannot be compared whatsoever to anything, nor can He be seen. This creates a logical inconsistency, in that Ezekiel and Isaiah did, in fact, make comparisons, and they did see an Image of God. Rabbi and philosopher Joseph Albo (ca.1380-1444) answers this dilemma by claiming
“that Isaiah, through his power of imagination, really did envision a corporeal God. This was because his prophetic ability was not as exalted as that of Moses. Albo adds, however, that Isaiah realized his error and exclaimed 'Woe is me! for [sic] I am affected by imagination.'” (2, 54).
Moses, comparatively, did not see an image, but simply “heard a voice speaking to him” (2, 54). This distinction somehow testifies to Moses's “more exalted prophetic abilities.” However, Moses' auditory experience does not exempt him from corporeal interaction. “A vision apprehended by the physical eyes is by definition not incorporeal,” and likewise, a message apprehended by the physical ears is by definition not incorporeal either (2, 67).
Furthermore, Moses desired to see God's glory, which he was granted (Exodus 33:18,19). Though God did not allow Moses to see His “Face,” the implication is that there is an Aspect of God that can be seen, regardless of whether or not the term “Face” is metaphoric or not. So while the “full force” of God's glory cannot be seen, manifestations and measures of it are seen often. The Glory of God takes various images: fire (Ex. 24:17), A burning bush (Ex. 3:2), Pillars of smoke and fire (Ex. 13:21), “Shekhinah” glory that dwelt between the cherubim of the Ark of testimony (Ex. 25:21-22), and as an “Angel of the LORD,” detailed above.
All of these manifestations, even as shadows and images of the True Substance, are still corporeal images. Corporeality entails finitude, which God cannot be. This is rectified, in that God Himself is infinite, but He can be known finitely. God in actuality is infinite, but His nature can be known, in some measure, by finite creatures. This necessitates finite revelation. Just as God is Power and Mercy in infinite quality, finite humans can know power and mercy in a limited way, which testifies to the infinite Source. God is infinite, and is by no means constrained to a material body (as is theologically explicit); yet He by no means is restricted from utilizing one (as is scripturally explicit). Just as God, in His Nature, is not finitely limited to an Avatar, He, in His actions, is by no means restricted from exercising One. Therefore, God being corpified does not infringe upon His infinitude.
What then, about God's Unity and Oneness? Curiously, the notion of a God with compound unity, or, in a sense, a God Who emanates Himself may seem a purely Christian notion, but it is a doctrinal theory also seen within Judaism, specifically Kabbalistic literature. Perhaps the most common such belief is the doctrine of the ten Sefirot, which are the ten Aspects, or Attributes of the Godhead. In short, it is a teaching that the infinite God (Ein Sof) emanates Himself into 10 characteristics, such as Will, Eternality, Kindness, Knowledge, etc. This model has been often compared to Christianity's Trinitarian theology (2, 40).
While not mainstream, one Kabbalistic thinker, Abraham Miguel Cardozo (1626-1706) has nonetheless theorized that there is a certain internal hierarchy within the Godhead, positing that the “First Cause” is infinitely transcendent and thus removed from any direct contact with the created world, and thus it is rather an Emanation of this “First Cause” that interacts with creation.
“...the “First Cause”, [sic] is entirely removed from any contact with the world. According to Cardozo, it is the Demiurge, the “God of Israel”, [sic] who created the world and exercises providence. In other words, it was the Demiurge, not the First Cause, who appeared to the Patriarchs, sent the plagues, and took the Israelites out of Egypt.” (2, 41)
This thought is somewhat parallel with other contemporary Kabbalists, who distinguished between the transcendent “Supreme Deity” (Ilat Ha'ilot, “Cause of Causes”) and immanent “Creator,” and addressed their prayers according to One or the Other. Even the influential and noteworthy Talmud commentator and Kabbalist R. Abraham ben David of Posquieres (c.1125-1198) made such a distinction in his “Amidah” prayers.
“...he [believed] that the first three and last three blessings are directed to the Supreme Deity (Ilat Ha'ilot), but the middle blessings, which are more ersonal, are directed to the divine entity which is the manifestation of Ilat Ha'ilot, the Creator (Yotser Bereshit).” (2, 43)
There are still other Kabbalists who directed prayers to the “'Unique Cherub', [sic] an anthropomorphic entity of the divine realm which emanated from, or was created by, God” (2, 43). The similitude between the Creator (Yotser Bereshit) and the “Unique Cherub” is striking. Depending upon which Kabbalist school of thought subscribed to, Man was created in Genesis 1:26 in the image of One or the Other.
Traditional Orthodox (Maimonidean) Judaism accuses Kabbalah, like Christianity, of dualism and polytheism. Yet like Christianity, Kabbalists strongly assert Monotheism and believe “that their detailed speculation on the Godhead [does] not damage the fundamental unity of God.” (2, 44) Therefore, God having a primary emanation does not infringe upon His singularity.
The certain ambiguity between God's immaterial Essence Proper and His corporeal manifestations, actions, personhood, etc. as the Angel of the LORD are best explained by this understanding of Divine Emanation and Manifestation. What Kabbalists called the “Unique Cherub,” Christianity has called the Logos. Philo, first century Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, came to this same conclusion, associating the “Angel of the LORD” directly with the Logos, further positing that this Logos is the means by which the world is created and sustained (3, 458–462). Maimonides's Principles, though orthodoxically sound, do not adequately explain or address the issue of God's manifestation and emanation; A phenomenon that has both rabbinic and scriptural precedent.
-----------------
Spending my fourth and final semester of bible college in Jerusalem, I had hoped to incorporate some culture component into my Theology essay. Meditating upon it, I decided to attempt to formulate an apologetic argument directed at Jews for the plausibility of the Logos, via compound unity and corporeality, citing both Scripture's “Angel of the LORD,” and Jewish thinkers.
Before coming to Israel, someone told me they felt as if the experience would be empty without seeking to introduce the Jewish people to their Messiah. Arguing for the Messiahship of Jesus via Prophecy was not foreign to me; yet I knew there was another barrier. Having an appreciation for apologetics and world religions alike, I recognized that for a large portion of Jews pious enough to see clearly into the prophecies, the deistic claims of the historical Jesus conflict fundamentally with their theology, thus nullifying any effectiveness of evangelism by means of prophetic citation. That is to say, that even if a Jew were to see how Christ fulfilled the prophecies concerning Messiah, the Maimonidean Principles of Jewish Faith create a logical inconsistency.
Therefore, I thought it prudent to address the plausibility of God having emanation, compound unity, or corporeality. Once acknowledged as plausible, then an argument for Jesus can begin. Without securing Christianity as an intellectually viable option, the Truth cannot be known. Toward this end, I hoped to cite predominantly Jewish sources; the Tanakh and commentators.
This paper has blessed me in my total experience here in the Holy Land, giving me clarity and context upon Jewish thought as a whole. The religious Jewish people are not ignorant or stupid, but much like our Catholic sister denomination, Scriptural authority has been usurped by Rabbinic authority, much like Papal authority and church tradition.
So ultimately, I have been blessed by greater understanding and more empathy toward the surrogate mother of our faith, as well as a respect for a diversity of the body of Christ. Some reap, some sow, and some break up the fallow ground.
-Matt
