Corporeality of god

Mark A. Cintron

Professor Zion Zohar & Professor Erik Larson

Seminar on Sacred Sources

29 March 2010

The Corporeality of God in Paul’s Epistles and Maimonides Writings

This paper will deal with the concept of God’s corporeality by comparing two sets

of text: Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed and Paul’s Epistles in the New Testament.

Some aid is sought from external writings corresponding or relating to the authors in

order to obtain a better understanding behind their concepts. Defining God’s corporeality

requires first an understanding of anthropomorphism. “In a more general sense,

anthropomorphism can be defined as the description of nonmaterial, “spiritual” entities in

physical, and specifically human, form.”1 Anthropomorphism may also entail corporeal

traits commonly known as “mental or psychological anthropomorphism.” This latter

applies not only to human shapes or forms but human feelings such as anger, hate, desire,

love, etc. Both Judaism and Christianity have understood God through human qualities.

Evidence exists for both faiths conceiving the incarnation of God in human form. This

being is consubstantial with the human person both in physical form and in emotional

traits.2

1
Werblowsky, R.J. Zwi. "Anthropomorphism." Encyclopedia of Religion. Second ed.
1987: 388.
2
Neusner, Jacob. Ancient Judaism: Religious and Theological Perspectives. Atlanta,
Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997: 101.

Judaism and Christianity both share the Torah, so any references made in this

paper to ancient Judaism will imply both faiths, for Christianity could not have been

conceive apart from Judaism. According to Neusner, ancient Judaism accepted the notion

of God as a human being. “Some speaking explicitly, others in subtle allusions, prophets

and apocalyptic writers, exegetes and sages, mystics and lawyers all maintained that

notion.”3 This does not mean that all believed in anthropomorphism or God’s

corporeality, in fact some scholars believe that the fifth book of the Torah, Deuteronomy,

discovered by King Josiah signaled a new Israelite theology – the Deuteronomic school.

“Its adherents wrote the new book and edited the first four books of the

Torah from the standpoint of Deuteronomic theology. The Deuteronomic school

introduced a perspective that rejected any anthropomorphism. They discouraged

belief in a God with a physical essence. Rather, God was without physical being,

but omnipotent, omniscient, and all good.”4

There is a divide in Judaism between those who would attribute physical qualities

to God and those that would not. This could also be interpreted in light of Werblowsky’s

classification of primary and secondary anthropomorphism. Primary anthropomorphism

is a simpler and uncritical mythology. While secondary anthropomorphism tends to be

more doctrinaire and intentional. Paul appears to come from a school in Judaism that

allowed for anthropomorphism. Conversely, Maimonides arguments are built upon a

school of thought that is more critical and thoughtful of the philosophical issues in

3
Neusner, Ancient Judaism, 102.
4
Karesh, Sara E., and Mitchell M. Hurvitz. Encyclopedia of Judaism. New York, NY:
Checkmark Books, 2007: 115

anthropomorphism. Thus, it would be more feasible for Paul to believe in Christ as the

incarnate Son of God while on the other hand less feasible for Maimonides.

Before we can truly understand both authors’ views on the corporeality of God,

we must first understand their premises for their belief. This can be grasped through a

careful evaluation of who they believed God was or the form in which they believed God

had chosen to reveal himself to humanity. We will begin this evaluation with Paul’s

epistles to the early churches and follow with several writings of Maimonides. This will

provide us with a background in which to compare and contrast both authors.

For Paul, there existed a limited revelation of God unto all humanity through

God’s creation.

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has

shown it to them. For his invisible attributes namely his eternal power and divine

nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the

things that have been made”5

Man’s sin pertains to his unwillingness to acknowledge God and follow in his

statutes.6 The message of salvation is rooted in the acknowledgment of God and his

revealed truth. Paul’s primary argument in the beginning of Romans is “there is no

partiality before God to either Jew or gentile that would excuse them of not

acknowledging Him”. Because of sin, no one is able to know God or achieve his

requirement for salvation. No one is made righteous by means of his or her own work.7

5
Romans 1:19-20
6
Romans 1:28
7
Romans 3:10

The only righteousness that could be obtained was that which came through the

knowledge and faith in Jesus Christ.

“The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who

believe. For there is no distinction: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory

of God… so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in

Jesus”8

Christ is the foundation for Paul’s soteriological message. It does not depend on

man’s knowledge of God’s laws but in God’s revelation of himself through Christ Jesus.

Jesus provides the necessary knowledge and sacrifice that man needs to follow.

To demonstrate the necessity of Jesus, Paul creates a parallel that compares Jesus

to Adam, the first man created. Adam represents the beginning of sin and damnation of

humanity and Christ the method for salvation.9 It is in Christ that God’s promises come to

fruition, 10 for Christ is the means by which God reconciles the world to himself.11 Jesus

is the lamb that was slain so that humanity could be atoned for once and forever.12

Through faith in Christ one is able to enter into an acknowledgment of God.

Christ is reproduced in the believer through the power of his Holy Spirit.13 This union

with Christ is seen in Paul’s letters through the image of a body; this image of the body is

composed of the believers while Christ is the head. Paul believed that the only way that

man could come into the knowledge of God was through the Spirit:

8
Romans 3:22-26
9
Romans 5:19
10
2 Corinthians 4:4
11
2 Corinthians 5:19
12
Romans 3:24-25; 5:10-11 & Colossians 1:20
13
Romans 6:6; Gal 2:20; Galatians 5:24

“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for

they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are

spiritually discerned… "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to

instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.”14

It is through Christ that one then is able to know God and follow in the path of

righteousness.15 It is no longer because of the law but now empowered from within

through Christ who is being reproduced inside the believer’s heart. It is no longer a

matter of the flesh but of the spirit. In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ exhorts a woman that a

time was coming “when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth…”

because “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”16

Jesus, thus, is the path that enables the worship of God in spirit and truth.17

Paul’s soteriological understanding reveals that Paul believed not only in God as

spirit but also in God as man in Christ Jesus. It is not so much an anthropomorphic

description, rather it is God who chooses to reveal himself to man through the incarnation

of Christ. This incarnation makes it feasible for man to know God and be saved through

God. It seems the early church made a clear connection between knowing God and

following God. The keeping of the law was not dismissed but redirected. One no longer

worshipped through acts but through the spirit who motivated the acts.18

14
1 Corinthians 2:15,16
15
Romans 7:25
16
John 4:23-24
17
This can also be seen in 2 Corinthians 3:17,18
18
1 Thessalonians 4:5; Gal 4:9; Titus 1:16;

Unlike Paul, Maimonides comes to the understanding of God with a very negative

view on anthropomorphism. Maimonides enters this conversation with an inclination to

negative theology. That is, by describing not what God is - but what he is not. To give

God attributes of man is to give God the deficiencies of man and one would do so

equivocally. For Maimonides the incorporeality of God is a necessary truth. Corporeal

uses in Scripture of God serve merely as metaphorical inferences so that man can

understand the creator. It is not the body that is in the likeness of the Creator but the

intellect. It is “because of the divine intellect conjoined with man, that it is said of the

latter he is in the image of God and in His likeness, not that God, may He be exalted, is a

body and possesses a shape.”19

Therefore, that which is attributed to God in corporeal terms in the Torah was

done so on behalf of the people. These attributes helped people observe religious rules

and provided an understanding of the principles of their faith:

“In like manner, the prophets applied all these terms to God: slow to anger

and abundant in loving-kindness, just and righteous, perfect, powerful, strong, and

the like. They did so to proclaim that these ways are good and right, and a man is

obliged to train himself to follow them and to imitate according to his strength.”20

Furthermore, Maimonides held that the correct description of God should be by

negation – “a description that is not affected by an indulgence in facile language and does

19
Friedlander, M. Moses Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul Ltd., 1904: Part I Chapter 2.
20
Butterworth, Charles E., and Raymond L. Weiss. Ethical Writings of Maimonides
(Laws Concerning Character Traits). New York City: New York University
Press, 1975: 30.

not imply any deficiency with respect to God in general or in any particular mode.”21 The

attributes of negation allow some particularization to be known without assigning a

definite classification to God. We can only recognize that He is, that He exists but still

unable to comprehend His essential nature. Using these negative attributes allow man to

“conduct the mind toward that which must be believed with regard to Him, may He be

exalted… and toward the utmost reach that man may attain in the apprehension of Him,

may He be exalted.”22

It is through the study of sciences that man is able to understand and negate with

certainty that which God is not. This knowledge thus becomes the means through which a

man comes nearer to God. Maimonides attributes to the Prophets an intellectual

inclination to metaphysics thus qualifying them for an apprehension of God. Maimonides

then explains that prophecy in scripture must be understood through reason by means of

the intellect. This is essential in order to preserve the notion of God’s incorporeality.

When prophets say they heard and saw God, it must have been in the form of a dream or

vision. Once the prophet was inspired by prophecy he would then see an allegory or in a

prophetic vision perceive what God had spoken to him.23

Maimonides believed that among the prophets there was no one who was closer to

God than Moses. Moses achieved the highest perfection possible in his class, qualifying

“him for the office of proclaiming the Law, a mission without a parallel in the history

from Adam to Moses, or among the prophets who came after him;”24 The law that was

given to Moses was not given through a voice but was perceived by Moses. Maimonides

21
Guide, Part I Chapter 58
22
Ibid. Part I Chapter 58
23
Ibid. Part II Chapter 44
24
Ibid. Part II Chapter 32

would not attribute any quality to God that could be perceived as anthropomorphic even

towards one such as Moses. The language used by Moses towards God is simply his

inclination to glorify God and give proof of his existence to the Israelites.25

“For the true glorification of the Lord consist in the comprehension of His

greatness and all who comprehend His greatness and perfection, glorify Him

according to their capacity, with this difference, that man alone magnifies God in

words, expressive of what he has received in his mind, and what he desires to

communicate to others.”26

In addition, Maimonides interprets the language used by the sages of old as a

necessary tool so that others of simpler minds could understand their faith and principles.

The understanding of God or the full comprehension of God is impossible:

“It has also become clear in metaphysics that by our intellects we are

unable to attain perfect comprehension of His existence, may He be exalted. This

is due to the perfection of His existence and the deficiency of our intellects. His

existence has no causes by which He could be known.”27

What can be known of God must be understood outside of the attributes given to

God so that one may reach a level of comprehension where “God exist without having

the attribute of existence, and that He is one, without having the attribute of unity.”28 This

understanding is achieved through the system of negation. For example saying that “God

is one” signifies a denial of His multiplicity, saying that He is powerful, knowing, and

25
26
27
Butterworth, Charles E., and Raymond L. Weiss. Ethical Writings of Maimonides
(Eight Chapters). New York City: New York University Press, 1975: 94-95.
28

willing, signifies in contrast that He is not powerless, ignorant, or negligent.29Again, all

that can be known according to Maimonides is an apprehension of His existence.

Affirmations of attributes are only adequate when referring to God’s actions and not God

Himself.30

Comparison

Though it is difficult to draw conclusions from Paul’s writings, it is still feasible

to understand his anthropomorphic stance in light of his letters to the early believers.

Maimonides, however, is very clear on his negative view of God as corporeal in any

sense. We can gain a clearer understanding of their differences by examining the

historical contexts during which the authors lived. Hellenism could have contributed

greatly to Paul’s view on God possessing the ability to be a corporeal being that agrees

with man’s physical attributes and traits. Hegel, in Lectures on the Philosophy of History

states: “man, as that which is truly spiritual, constitutes that which is genuinely true in the

Greek gods.” There is a relation between Paul’s understanding of God and that of his age.

Conversely, Maimonides writes in a time and place guided by Jewish and Muslim

thought. During that time, Jewish theology and philosophy could be seen as response to

Christian doctrine. Maimonides like Onkelos (2nd C.E.), whom he often quotes, is dealing

with ideas that where spreading quickly from Christianity into Judaism. Thus, a response

to the incorporeality of God is essential to draw a clear distinction between Christian and

Jewish thought. The Guide of the Perplexed is written so that the intellectual may not fall

into error of using equivocal language of God or in error while interpreting Scripture.

God’s Oneness and Unity

29
30

Both Paul and Maimonides believe in God being one, Maimonides, makes the

distinction that although God is one, it does not infer unity. To consider God’s oneness

with the possibility of possessing attributes would lead one to consider that God may

have a composition and therefore divisions. This would invalidate the position of God

truly being one.

“If, however, someone believes that He is one, but possesses a

certain number of essential attributes, he says in his words that He is one, but

believes Him in his thought to be many. This resembles what the Christians say:

namely that He is one but also three, and that the three are one.”

Maimonides believed that their statements where misrepresenting the truth attributing to

such Jeremiah 12:2 “Thou art near in their mouth, and far from their reins.”

Paul in several occasions makes reference to the oneness of God. First, in Romans

3:29-31

“Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, o

Gentiles also, since God is one. He will Justify the circumcised by faith and the

uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no

means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

Paul here expresses the oneness of God as supreme God as creator of all humanity

whether Jew or gentile. Similar to the exhortation of Romans, in 1 Corinthians 8:6 “Yet

for us there is one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all

things and through whom we exist.” Then again in Ephesians 4:6 “One God and Fatter of

all, who is over all and through all and in all”. Finally, 1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one

God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Given that scriptural evidence for Paul are letters to the early church of an

evolving religion it is difficult to say whether or not Paul had a defense for maintaining

the oneness of God while attributing godship to Jesus. As stated previously Paul must

have believed in Gods capacity for incarnation. Such evidence in ancient Judaism can be

seen through the Babylonian (Bavli) Talmud where it “presented God as a fully formed

personality, like a human being in corporeal traits, attitudes, emotions, and other virtues,

in actions and the means of carrying out actions.”31These representations are such that

Maimonides interprets as being attributions of Gods actions rather than His being and

physical attributes expressed with the purpose of conveying imagery.

The Knowledge of God and His Existence

Maimonides held that all that God revealed of Himself to Moses was his

existence. Thus leaving Moses, the wisest man, to ask two things from God:

“The one thing he asked was, that God should let him know His true

essence: the other, which in fact he asked first, that God should let him know His

attributes. In answer to both these petitions God promised that He would let him

know all His attributes, and that these were nothing but His actions.”32

Thus, Moses’ Law seeks to follow those actions that are seen in God. Not because they

are necessarily qualifications of God’s corporeality but rather that, they make man aware

of God’s existence. The Law allows man not only to recognize God and God’s actions

but also to follow in the path of righteousness. Maimonides believed that “the chief aim

of man should be to make himself, as far as possible, similar to God: that is to say, to

31
Neusner, Ancient Judaism, 102.
32

make his acts similar to the acts of God. ”33 In addition, he exhorts in Laws Concerning

Character Traits that “Man needs to direct every single one of his deeds toward attaining

knowledge of the Name.”34 He believed that this was the chief aim of the patriarchs so

that the people could know and worship the one true God.35 “You know from the

repeated declarations in the Law that the principal purpose of the whole Law was the

removal and utter destruction of idolatry.36”

When Maimonides refers to knowing God he means to recognize or accept His

existence. The Laws exist to keep people from idolatry and in civil society, but what

evidence does Maimonides find of Abraham’s belief in the existence of God? He redacts

a story where Abraham, in the midst of the idolatrous Sabeans, recognizes the existence

of one true God, by doing so Abraham is blessed and receives an understanding that the

name of the Lord also proclaims his existence.

“When [Abraham] the" Pillar of the World" appeared, he became convinced that

there is a spiritual Divine Being, which is not a body, nor a force residing in a

body, but is the author of the spheres and the stars”37

Similarly, to Abraham, Maimonides deduces the existence of God through

contemplative means. He follows through with Aristotle’s argument for the existence of

an independent eternal being that is the source of all things created. Like Aristotle,

Maimonides proves after much consideration that:

33
Ibid, Part I Chapter 54
34
Weiss, (Laws Concerning Character Traits – Translation), 34.
35
Guide, Part III Chapter 51
36
Ibid, Part III Chapter 29
37
Ibid, Part III Chapter 29

“There must be a being with absolutely independent existence, a being whose

existence cannot be attributed to any external cause, and which does not include

different elements; it cannot therefore be corporeal, or a force residing in 4

corporeal object; this being is God.”38

Furthermore, Maimonides goes on to argue of the impossibility of God being

more than one because of the information that we have of the universe and the previous

arguments of the necessity of independence of that being (admitting no duality). This

deduction would be an argument against the Christians belief in Christ as incarnate

(corporeal) Son of God coexisting with God the Father.

“Consequently nothing corporeal can be a unity, either because everything

corporeal is divisible or because it is a compound; that is to say, it can logically be

analyzed into two elements; because a body can only be said to be a certain body

when the distinguishing element is added to the corporeal substratum, and must

therefore include two elements: but it has been proved that the Absolute admits of

no dualism.”39

It is evident, that Maimonides believed that the existence and knowledge of a

being was closely tied to a comprehension of His (God) incorporeality. However, Paul

not only believed in the corporeality of God but also admitted the possibility of knowing

God through Christ Jesus. In the first letter to the Corinthians, we have evidence of Paul’s

understanding of how God uses the lowly and foolish things to shame man’s

understanding, it can also serve as an argument as to why God would choose a body of a

man to bring redemption to humanity:

38
Ibid, Part II Chapter I
39
Ibid, Part II Chapter I

“For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified,

a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles… For the foolishness of God is

wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men… But God chose

what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the

world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even

things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being

might boas in the presence of God.”40

Thus, it is conceivable for Paul that God would chose to reveal himself in the

form of man even as defective as that may be. Furthermore, Paul presents his listeners

with recognition in their capacity to comprehend the existence of God. In Romans, he

says that what can be known about God has been revealed “since the creation of the

world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”41Humanity can

recognize the truth that about God but still suppress it choosing to believe instead

“images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”42Here a it is clear

that Jesus, for Paul, was not merely an image resembling mortal man, but rather was God

himself incarnate.

Perhaps one of the best illustrations of Paul’s argument for the existence, unity,

and reconciliation of God is found in his presentation to the Epicurean and Stoic

philosophers in Athens:

“The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and

earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as

40
1 Corinthians 1:22-28
41
Romans 1:20
42
Romans 1:23

though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath

and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all

the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of

their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel

their way toward him and find him… For ‘in him we live and move and have our

being’.”

Paul believed that all men in every nation had been granted the ability to perceive

God’s existence and follow after him. For Paul the Law was a means to show humanity

the righteousness that God desired, a righteousness that was unattainable by means of the

Law alone. There was a need for a redeemer – Jesus Christ. Karl Barth’s Christological

view best interprets Paul: “man and mankind must not be interpreted in terms of Adam,

that is, in the light of biological or historical or philosophical conceptions of human

nature. Rather, the only indispensable precondition for an understanding of human nature

is the fact of God’s revelation of Himself in the man Jesus.”43

Conclusion

We began the discussion of these two great thinkers by first defining

anthropomorphism as the attribution of human qualities or traits to God. We then

evaluated evidence presented from both authors for or against such attributions.

Evaluating these in light of Maimonides was easier given his presentation in the Guide

for the Perplexed was mainly about discussing the attributes of God. Paul, however,

presented slight complexities because his presentations where messages to individuals

and churches. It was still possible to follow Paul’s understanding of Christ incarnate,

43
Barth, Karl. Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans 5. Eugene: Wipf &Amp;
Stock Publishers, 1968. 15.

giving us the ability to deduce that although Paul believed in God being one, he also

accepted Jesus Christ as God incarnate. In many areas, Paul’s argument is based on

Christ’s ability to conquer not only sin but also death itself, making Jesus, Paul’s primary

premise for interpreting scripture.

Maimonides primary premise for interpreting scripture is that which can be

intelligibly deduced. Given that it is man’s intellectual capacity that was created in the

image and likeness of God, then all that agrees with the existence of this being must be

also proven by science, metaphysics, and physics. Therefore, the existence of God must

be one that is arrived after careful thought. Many may know of the existence of this

Supreme Being but few actually know things of him, the highest in the rank of

knowledge being Moses followed by all the patriarchs and prophets in ascension. The

more one knows of what God is not, the more easily he is able to discern what He is,

making that person closer to God. Man follows the Law because God gave it so that man

may know who He is through his attributed actions.

There are areas where both Paul and Maimonides agree in regards to a life

dedicated to God. However, the purpose of this study was to evaluate their understanding

of God’s corporeality. By doing so, we evaluated the two main premises according to

both Jewish and Christian belief: That God exists and that He is one. Both authors agree

that it is possible to know things of God by observing the things in nature that where

created. Nonetheless, the times and circumstances under which they are writing lead them

to different conclusions of these observations. Paul having Jesus appear to him on the

road to Emmaus and living in a time influenced by Hellenism led him to see God as

personal though He was a spirit He was also corporeal. Conversely, Maimonides, guided

by medieval thought, wrote with a sour taste towards Christian philosophy. His great

admiration for men like Aristotle and Onkelos facilitated his ability to rationalize the

existence of one supreme and incorporeal being.

Works Cited

Barth, Karl. Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans 5. Eugene: Wipf &Amp;

Stock Publishers, 1968. Print.

Butterworth, Charles E., and Raymond L. Weiss. Ethical Writings of Maimonides. New

York City: New York University Press, 1975. Print.

Crusemann, Frank. "The Torah and The Unity of God." Word & World XXI.3 (2001):

243 -252. Print.

Friedlander, M. Moses Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed. London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul Ltd., 1904. Print.

Helm, Paul. Referring To God: Jewish and Christian Philosophical and Theological

Perspectives. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000. Print.

Holy Bible: English Standard Version Study Bible. Leicester, England: Crossway Books,

2008. Print.

Karesh, Sara E., and Mitchell M. Hurvitz. Encyclopedia of Judaism. New York, NY:

Checkmark Books, 2007. Print.

Murphy, George L. The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross. New York: Continuum, 2003.

Print.

Neusner, Jacob. Ancient Judaism: Religious and Theological Perspectives. Atlanta,

Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997. Print.

Nirenstein, Samuel. "The Problem of the Existence of God in Maimonides, Alanus and

Averroes." The Jewish Quarterly Review 14.4 (1924): 395-454.

http://www.jstor.org. Web. 5 Mar. 2010.

Werblowsky, R.J. Zwi. "Anthropomorphism." Encyclopedia of Religion. Second ed.

1987. Print.

Wolfson, Harry A. "Maimonides on the Unity and Incorporeality of God." The Jewish

Quarterly Review 56.2 (1965): 112-136. http://www.jstor.org. Web. 4 Jan. 2010.
Yinger, Kent L. Paul, Judaism, and Judgment according to Deeds. New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.

Corporeality of god

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Corporeality of god

Corporeality of god