Attributes and Archetypes (1)

 

            During the Middle Ages the theory of divine attributes was associated with some very interesting logical and philosophical questions.  We will discuss some of these questions later on.  In order to do so, we will have to sort the various types of attributes into categories.  However, before we proceed, we must realize an important fact: our religious language in general and our language of prayer in particular is based upon the Scriptures.  In the Song of Glory we say "through the hands of Your prophets, through the mystery of Your servants, You have displayed Your glory."  Our religious language is rooted in the prophetic vision.  Therefore we must return to the prophetic vision and gain a deeper understanding of it.

 

            We will begin with a discussion of the most fundamental type of divine attributes, those which reflect human traits.  The term for this type of description of God is anthropomorphism.

 

Anthropomorphism

 

            These attributes use characteristics borrowed from the world of human interaction.  This anthropomorphism need not be physiological; it may take a psychological form as well.  Thus, for example, we find phrases reflecting the human body, such as "the eyes of God," or psychological ones, such as "God's anger."  Of course, these divine attributes  are not to be interpreted literally; it is a known fact that the Torah uses human language terms.  As our Sages put it, "the  Torah spoke the language of people."

 

            This phrase is important, but it does not say enough.  The Kuzari, and the Rambam in his wake, taught us that this phrase is only the opening for a discussion of biblical language.  First of all, it is worth noting the position of Abraham Joshua Heschel; he maintained that the Bible contains no actual anthropomorphisms; for the Bible never describes God's physicality, only His apparent emotional response to our actions.  This distinction helps us understand the importance of the "psychological" attributes, such as the statement that God "loves the convert" or "abhors evil."  These phrases explicitly direct us to their ethical meaning, and demand that we not use them to reach anthropomorphic conclusions.

 

            Given this background, we ought to take note of the statement made by Benno Jacob, a modern Bible commentator, who draws our attention to an interesting paradox.  As we, the readers, proceed through the Scriptures, we notice that the use of anthropomorphism increases.  The reason is simple.  We must be wary of anthropomorphisms when they pose a danger, when people are liable to be misled by them.  However, as we reach a level of distance from anthropomorphism and it loses its religious philosophical menace, it becomes more and more permissible, if it helps us express what we cannot express directly in words.  This is the reason that the prophets used human language much more freely.  If we combine these two statements, we will better understand the Rambam's guiding principles in this area, which we would do well to follow.  They are as follows:

1. The Scriptures do not attribute importance to a simplistic interpretation of anthropomorphisms.

2. We must be exact as to the meaning of the anthropomorphism by examining the other potential options for expression in the textual context.

 

Why Use Anthropomorphisms?

 

            The Rambam fought a stubborn war against anthropomorphism.  However, his great achievement was not merely the disqualification of these adjectives in their simple form, but rather the wonderful explanation of why anthropomorphism exists, and why the Torah chooses to use these terms.  The Rambam explains that the goal of all the Scriptural descriptions of God is to communicate a sense of God's flawlessness.  When two descriptive options exist, the Scriptures choose the one which best conveys the sense of God's flawlessness.  The Torah desires to impart the concept of an utterly perfect God, and therefore it uses terms which infer perfection, even though they do not accurately describe God.  Let me give you some examples of this principle.

 

            The Torah uses terms taken from the human senses.  Thus, for example, God is attributed sight, hearing, and even the sense of smell.  These attributions are not coincidental.  The Torah wishes to teach us that God is familiar with and interested in mankind, and responds to man's behavior.  However, the Torah does not use all the possible terms in the sphere of the senses.  Terms connected with the sense of touch and of taste are totally absent.  This requires an explanation, since this striking omission is clearly intentional.  The senses which the Torah uses to describe God's responses maintain the sense of distance for us.  People can hear and see across great distances.  This is not the case with our other senses.  The Torah wished to convey the sense of God's presence and watchfulness on the one hand, while avoiding the potential pitfalls of the anthropomorphism of the senses.  In this area idolatry failed, for the intimate anthropomorphisms which it allowed itself gave legitimacy to the belief in physical relationships between the gods and their human subjects.

 

Anthropomorphism In Language

 

            We can attribute characteristics to God, because we use various indirect linguistic and poetic forms of language.  The metaphor is a good example of such a tool.  I would suggest that there are two types of metaphor.  One type of metaphor is the intentional use of a word in order to evoke associations from another area and apply them to the area under discussion.  For example, one might say, in reference to a politician, "So-And-So is a real snake."  We describe a particular situation in the social or intellectual sphere by using terms taken from the world of the jungle.  There the snake is the wily, slippery trickster.  We mean to say that this particular person demonstrates characteristics similar to the snake's.  We borrow a word from one field, and move it to another, bringing all its associations along.  Another type of metaphor would be the use of a word in order to apply only one narrow aspect of it to our situation.  For example, when we say that we have completed "the lion's share" of the work, we do not mean to arouse all the associations of the lion in the jungle.  We merely refer to the single aspect of the relatively large size of the lion's share.  Generally, the first type of metaphor is the one we commonly use when defining attributes of God.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)