Book Review: The Limits of Orthodox Theology, Chapter Five, Only God is to be Worshipped

"The Fifth Principle teaches that only God is to be worshipped. Stars, spheres, angels, and elements and their compounds have no free will, and as such must not be used as intermediaries to reach God."

The majority of the chapter centers around numerous references to praying to angels and asking them to intercess on our behalf. This type of intercession can even be found in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 60b, BT Sanhedrin 44b). More interesting is the fact that Maimonides himself contradicts the Fifth Principle in the Mishneh Torah (quoting BT Ber. 60b in 'Hilkhot tefilah' 7:5).

But there is one paragraph in this chapter which by itself makes this chapter valuable. One rabbi, Rabbi Nissim Gerondi of the fourteenth century, saw something in Scripture which violates (or seems to violate) the principle that only God is to be worshipped.

[Gerondi] puts forth the strange and original position that there is one particular angel before whom prostration is permitted. R. Nissim makes this claim in the course of explaining how it was that Joshua prostrated himself before an angel (Josh. 5:14), an act which should be forbidden, just as it is forbidden to sacrifice an animal, burn incense, or put a libation to an angel. (Prostration, sacrifice, incense-burning, and libation are the four forms of worship singled out by the Talmud as always being forbidden, even if this is not how the deity in question is usually worshipped.) R. Nissim does not suggest that prostration to an angel performed as an act of honor is permitted, just as it is with humans. This is probably because the Talmud (BT San. 61b) specifically exempts prostration to humans from the prohibition if it is not done as an act of worship. The implication is that prostration is by definition to be regarded as a form of worship with regard to angels. According to R. Nissim, however, there is one angel who is special in this regard, and before whom one can prostrate oneself. This is the angel spoken of in Exodus 23:20-2, concerning whom God says 'My name is in him.' It is because this angel in osme way share an aspect of God's divinity that it is treated differently from the other angels. As R. Nissim put it, 'Prostrating before him is as if one is prostrating before God.'

What Rabbi Nissim was in Scripture was an angel who shared aspects of God's divinity. God Himself says that God's name was within this angel.

As I've discussed previously, that angel can be explained by Christian beliefs. We have evidence of the Trinity.

How can an angel be divine and identified apart from God at the same time? In the same way as John 1:1 does regarding Jesus. Y'shua is both God and distinct from God the Father.

Traditional Jewish theology cannot handle these Scripture verses. If you want to keep the Fifth Principle, you need to let go of the Second Principle. And vice-versa.

Given the passages in the Tanakh which deal with this angel, it is surprising only one rabbi (that Shapiro knows of) caught the tension between Jewish theology and those texts.

Book Review: The Limits of Orthodox Theology, Chapter Three, The Incorporality of God

"The Third Principle teaches God's incorporeality - that God is without image and form. According to Maimonides, this Principle includes the assertion that God cannot be described as being in movement or at rest, for this would mean that he has form and physical dimensions. Although, as we shall see, the Bible and Talmud speak of a corporeal God, Maimonides' philosophical outlook forced him to insist on divine incorporeality."

To me at least, this chapter came as one of the bigger surprises. Dr. Shapiro compiles numerous citations showing mainstream Jewish belief in a corporeal God.

Those who held this view had ample Biblical support for their view. Besides anthropomorphisms, being created "in the image of God" seems to be on As a believer in Jesus, it is nice we can quote Jesus as saying "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) or Paul who described God as invisible.

Evidence for the corporeal belief comes from some outside sources, including Justin Martyr. But there is also evidence for incorporeal belief from rabbinic times. Hecateus of Abdera (4th century BCE), Strabo (1st century), Livy (1st century), and Tacitus report on Jewish beliefs about God's incorporeality.

Shaprio also discusses varying opinions from Jewish authorities (ones who did believe in incorporeality) whether those who deviated from this principle should be considered heretics. If the Torah lends credence to this belief, why should it be held against people if they believe falsely based on the Torah? This is another example of Maimonides giving precedence to philosophy over Scripture, although as believers in Jesus we believe Maimonides is correct on this point.

However, there is a way that Christian beliefs help clear up the tension in the Biblical data. John states that no one has seen God but that Jesus makes him known (John 1:18) and Paul declares that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). This can helps us realize how God can remain unseen while manifesting Himself in ways some have seen.

Isaiah was criticized by Albo as Shapiro relates:

I have already quoted Isaiah 6:5, where we read that Isaiah saw God and feared that it would be his undoing. Instead of trying to explain Isaiah's vision -- 'I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up' -- in a philosophical manner, Albo claims that Isaiah, through his power of imagination.' Albo explains, 'The meaning is, I am affected by the power of imagination and my prophetic inspiration is not through a luminous glass like that of Moses, who heard a voice speaking to him without seeing any image before his eyes.' According to the Talmud, this utterance of Isaiah, which contradicted Moses' statement: 'For men shall not see Me and live' (Exod 33:20), was one of the reasons Manasseh slew him.

While we may not be exactly sure what Isaiah saw (the prophet may indeed be using figurative language), the New Testament helps us figure out the problem the Talmud wrestled with. A Trinitarian understanding shows us that God the Son reveals God the Father, who Paul describes as invisible and living in unapproachable light.

One of the more troubling aspects of Maimonides beliefs was that he believed all anthropmorphic descriptions of God must be understood figuratively. While we would agree that there is plenty of Biblical language which uses anthropomorphisms, not all texts can be explained away in this manner.

"...a corporeal God is a contradiction in terms, as it is impossible for a corporeal God to have the defining characteristics set down in the First and Second Principles. As note above, Maimonides also states that God, omnipotent though he is, is unable to assume corporeal form. In fact, Maimonides goes even further and states that one who believes in God corporeality is worse than some types of idolator."

One of the texts in this section I was very surprised not to see mentioned was Genesis 18. In this text, God appears to Abraham in human form. The text even refers to a location where the meeting occurs. Abraham even gives God food.

Again, the Christian conception helps explain the tensions in the biblical texts Maimonides cannot explain. There is a part of this principle which precludes the Christian conception of the incarnation, where God is still spirit but takes on human form.

We must always test our understandings and beliefs against Scripture. We must check our beliefs against all of Scripture, all of the biblical data.

Book Review: The Limits of Orthodox Theology, Chapter Two,the Existence and Unity of God

"The first principle declares that God exists, that he is perfect in every way, and that he is the cause of the existence of all things."

This is probably the lesast controversial of all the Principles. This principle includes the belief in the eternality of God and His perfection. The only objection to this is how we should understand God's perfection.

Can God do anything? Most Jewish thinkers (and Christian theologians as well) have limited what God can do to the logically possible. In other words, God cannot do what is logically nonsense because such a thing doesn't mean anything. And that doesn't imply an imperfection in God's nature.

However, Shapiro lists some Jewish thinkers who reject this line of thinking. For example, one rabbi said "I believe God can make a rectangular triangle."

Again, for the most part this principle is not controversial. Nor is it unique to Judaism, as this Principle could be affirmed by Islam or Christianity.

"The Second Principle teaches the absolute unity of God, which is unlike the unity of anything else. No Jewish teacher has openly disputed this."

Now, the second principle is Unitarianism. And since Christianity is Trinitarian, this is usually one of the major theological objections to Christianity.

The only forces that run counter to this principle are kabbalistic, but no kabbalist would say this violates the unity of God. Similarly, Christians affirm monotheism while embracing Trinitarianism.

The kabbalah has a doctrine of the Sefirot, the ten aspects of the God head. Shapiro mentions a rabbi that "whereas the Chistians believe in 'three', the kabbalists believe in 'ten'.

Now, if memory serves, the Greeks believed in the absolute unity of the One. That kept crossing my mind as I read this.

How can we, as believers in Jesus, criticize the kabbalists for ten instead of three (ignoring for the moment vast differences between Sefirot and Persons in the Trinity)?

Whether the source is Jewish tradition, Greek philosophy, kabbalah or Christian theology, we should always test everything against Scripture. Our forbearers in the Messianic faith did not come up with the doctrine of the Trinity on a whim. It was based on careful reflection on Scripture.

Maimonides' Thirteen Principles, the Apostolic Creed, and the kabbalah are not the ultimate authorities for us. Scripture is. And this book can help remind us of that. We shouldn't be basing our views on God's nature on our own idle speculations. That would be idolatry.

But, as a believer in Jesus, idea of the Sefirot arising within Judaism is quite interesting to me. Although I doubt at this point in time the origin of such ideas could be ascertained.

The Trinity: One What and Three Whos

Since in dialog with Jewish people the doctrine of the Trinity gets accused of being polytheistic, I've linked to a useful blog entry.

Here is a quote:

All three persons in the Godhead share equally and completely the one divine nature, and are therefore the same God—coequal in attributes, nature, and glory. God has revealed Himself as one in essence, but three in personhood. In terms of what God is (essence), God is one; in terms of who God is (personhood), God is three. God is therefore "one What" and "three Whos." The God of the Bible therefore reflects both a unity of nature (monotheism) and a plurality of personhood (trinitarianism).