The Principles of Faith (3)

 

The Fourth Principle: Eternal Existence

 

     We have discussed negative attributes at length in the previous lectures.  The best example of negative attributes is that of eternal existence.  In the Rambam's view, eternal existence does not mean that God exists in time, but as opposed to mortals like us, is immortal; rather it means that God exists outside the realm of time altogether, that time has no meaning for Him.  This concept is related to the age-old question of foreknowledge and free choice.  We will discuss this issue later on.

 

The Four Attributes

 

The four divine attributes - existence, unity, non-physicality and immortality - are interrelated.  The philosophers explain that they are interrelated in a similar manner as those mathematical axioms which are connected in a sort of interdependent ring.  We can prove axiom one on the basis of axiom two.  Afterwards, however, we can prove axiom two on the basis of axiom one, as well.  This proves that they are expressions of the same truth.  Thus we learn that these four attributes are really one.

 

     This idea is parallel to the Rasag's central claim, that the multiplicity of divine attributes is a result of the problems of human language. The limitations of language cause us to  use various words, such as alive, willing, and capable.  If we were of higher intelligence, we would be able to say alive-willing-capable in one word.  For, in truth, God has only one attribute.

 

The Fifth Principle

 

The Rambam's fifth principle is essential to our understanding of monotheism.  This principle teaches us that our relationship with God is not only intellectual; it is, first and foremost, a relationship which finds expression in action.  Let us assume the existence of creatures which are superior to man.  We can easily imagine the existence of additional spiritual beings.  Does this possibility damage monotheism?  Yes, this danger does exist.  The fifth principle explains the boundaries of faith in this area.  The simple claim that other beings exist besides man does not necessarily constitute idolatry.  It depends upon how man perceives these beings and the practical ramifications of his perception.  Jewish monotheism means that we do not worship any other element in the cosmos.  We do not worship any creature; we worship the Creator.  In the final analysis, the issue of worship is what defines monotheism.  Idolatry can be based on a very spiritual and abstract idea, which was nonetheless drawn into practical idol worship.  The most outstanding example is Buddhism.  Buddha's philosophy was extremely abstract.  In a sense, he could even have been accused of atheism.  Yet, his approach created a new paganism.  For people who are not aware of the very abstract philosophy of the originator may enter a Buddhist temple; they see idols and sacrificial rites.  Thus, a very abstract, philosophical religion, containing definite elements of truth, may be expressed in practice through idolatrous decadence. This is typical of many Eastern religions.  It echoes in the voices of the meditation masters who demand a sort of symbolic sacrifice while at the same time denying any element of idolatry in their practices.  Perhaps the intentions are good, but these phenomena prove that without the fifth principle, extreme abstraction encourages paganism.[1:96-97]

 

     We will return to the fifth principle again when we discuss the phenomenon of idolatry.  Here we must focus on a topic which is connected to this issue - the sin of the golden calf.

 

The Dangers Of Monotheism

 

     The sin of the golden calf damaged not the first principle but the fifth.  Monotheism constantly faces two dangers.  The first is idolatry, paganism: "You shall not have other gods before Me."  The second can be termed fetishism: "You shall not make for yourself any statue or graven image."

 

     This analysis is the basis for the Rihal's interpretation of the sin of the golden calf.  We must first paint a different picture of the sin from what it appears at first glance.  This picture is now popular, but this is only due to the Kuzari.  The sin, says Rihal, is not rebellion against God or an attempt to revive idolatry.  Actually, from a subjective point of view, from the perspective of the feeling of the people, the nation did not sin; rather they tried to worship God in this manner.  And yet, despite this positive desire, the action they took contains an objective mistake, perhaps even a crime.  The sin of the golden calf should be understood as a sin against the fifth principle, a sin of fetishism.  This was not a betrayal of the God who took us out of Egypt.  It was a transgression of the prohibition against making idols, idols which do not represent God but are different, incorrect forms of serving Him.

 

     The Kuzari's position is clearly the obvious interpretation of the text, since it points to the essence of the calf as a sort of throne for God.  The golden calf has an interesting parallel in the Ark.  The Ark and the keruvim constitute the true throne, which symbolizes the fact that God continues to accompany the nation on all of its journeys, even after the Jews leave the place of revelation, Mt. Sinai.  A structural similarity between the calf and the ark exists; however, the difference between them remains in evidence.  The  similarity cannot hide the significant difference.  The calf retains a pagan flavor and meaning, a  remnant of a world that the freed nation ought to have left behind.

 

The Essence Of The Sin

 

The commentaries on the topic of the golden calf can be divided into three approaches:

 

A. The sin is the result of the nations' inability to accept upon themselves the most abstract form of divine worship, without the mediation of physical images and symbols.  In their minds, these symbols constituted giant magnets attracting positive divine influences.  Sometimes man sins out of love, similar to the great love of an elephant who enters a china shop to buy a gift for his beloved and the sin of the simpleton in the pharmacy.  It is the folly of the person who, although guided by good intentions, does not know how to express them appropriately.

 

B. The sin is the result of not fulfilling the divine command.  The Jews did not follow the divine instructions.  The essential difference between holiness and defilement lies in the faithful fulfillment of the divine command.

 

C. The third approach emphasizes the idea that this commandment is not a decree with no reason.  This idea is also expressed in Rihal's parable about the doctor and his impersonator.  We must be aware of the fact that there are connections and interactions in reality that man cannot rationally understand.  We must reject our preconceived ideas, for these assumptions are usually conceived from the perspective of the rational man.  With openness and humility, we must face facts and discoveries which alter our perceptions.  In retrospect, we will recognize that our previous positions were not rational but rather a result of our imaginative faculties.

 

     These three principles were developed by different commentators.  The first approach was developed thoroughly by Rabbi Ovadiah Mi-sforno, who saw the sin of the golden calf as a fall from abstract consciousness to a need for tangible symbols.  According to this explanation, the Tabernacle and the worship focused therein were not part of God's original plan.  Originally, God distanced the Jewish people from any relation to a tangible, physical symbol.  However, now, after the sin, the Jewish people must return to the physical and tangible in divine worship.  This approach may possibly reflect the opinion of the Rambam.

 

     The second position is formulated in principle by various commentators, who emphasized that the essence of keeping the Torah lies only in performing the will of God.

 

     The third opinion is represented by Rihal, who reiterates it later on [3:23].  The tabernacle and the Keruvim represent a different causality, not a natural one.  This position would later find expression in kabbalistic literature and also seems to be the position of Rihal.  He writes:

 

"All this came to them at the advice of the magicians and talisman holders among them, who considered their worship, which they followed according to the logic of their imagination, to be close to the true worship.  However, their way in this was none other than the way of the simpleton which we mentioned earlier [1:89] who entered the pharmacy of the doctor and killed people with the same drugs that formerly had cured them." [1:97]

 

The fact is that divine commands are not arbitrary.  The apparently meaningless command covers a deeper meaning which cannot always be understood.  When a person disobeys God he not only commits a sin; he also destroys a reality which he cannot properly understand.  Rihal formulated this difference succinctly when he said that "the source of faith is the source of rebellion."

 

The Eternal Covenant

 

The sin of the golden calf is a central pivot in the debate regarding the eternal or transient nature of the covenant.  This issue lay at the heart of all our religious polemics.  Christian theology, and, to a certain extent, Muslim theology as well, claimed that the Jews were chosen by God, but because of their sin God despised them.  Rihal teaches us a paradoxical truth.  It is the sin of the golden calf which teaches us the eternity of the covenant.  It was a horrible sin.  Our sages  see it as an appalling betrayal, immediately following the establishment of the covenant.  Yet, despite this, the covenant was not annulled, and God forgave the Jewish people.  Thus the very extent of the sin teaches us, paradoxically, that the covenant is eternal.

 

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)