Skip to main content

The Divine Names (1)

Text file

 

In the fourth section [4: 1-9], Rihal interprets the various divine names used by the holy scriptures.

 

Elokim [4:1]

 

We will begin our discussion, as did Rihal, with the divine name "Elokim."  This choice is not arbitrary.  This name expresses the concept of God which man may discover not through prophecy, but through the application of his logic and intellect, without direct divine assistance.  As we have already demonstrated on many occasions, there are two ways to reach God: through logic, which Rihal calls "hakasha," and intuitively, which he calls "ta'am" (4:17).  This refers to a direct human experience, as opposed to an indirect, logical conclusion of divine existence.  "Ta'am" is, of course, a description of prophecy; however, it is not limited to the prophetic sphere.  Rihal explains that this experience occurs at the encounter between the plain humble individual and the prophet: "and their souls find rest in their complete faith in the prophet ... and yet the masses are not attracted to follow [the philosophers] as though the truth had been revealed to the masses as a sort of prophetic vision [4:17]."

 

     The terms "ta'am" and "hakasha" originated in the Hebrew translation of the Kuzari by Rabbi Yehuda Ibn Tibbon.  Rabbi Yehuda Even Shmuel, in his translation, uses the words "chush" and "hekesh."  Often the terms used in classical translations of Jewish texts have become an integral part of the Jewish philosophical tradition.

 

     The term Elokim can help us pinpoint the difference between "the God [Elokim] of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" and the "god of Aristotle" (4:16).  The perception of God as "Elokim" was achieved by the great philosophers in their investigations.  However, this understanding was also reached by all nations, from the most primitive to the most sophisticated.  The recognition of a higher power is a universal phenomenon, common to all places and periods, since the beginning of human existence.  However, this universal character also teaches us much about the nature of this understanding.  The pagan idol worshipper achieved some understanding of what exists beyond his sensory perceptions; yet, he did not actually reach a perception of God.  This is demonstrated by the fact that the pagan never discovered the unity of the Creator.  The pagan searched for God, but he found His servants and was content to look no further.

 

     The name Elokim is used for mundane purposes as well, when it denotes, for example, the ruler or the judge.  This is because they are individual instances of a larger principle, that the name Elokim denotes power and rulership, particularly powers which we cannot perceive with our senses because they exist in a realm beyond our palpable reality.  Thus, this name is an instance in which we use one term to express a number of ideas.  In this case, we apply the semantic principle known in Jewish thought as "bi-khlal u-veyichud" - in general and in particular.  The word Elokim refers generally to the powers that operate in our world, and refers in particular to the ruler of the entire world.  The reality of Elokim thus makes our relationship with the world possible.  How, then, do we explain how we differ from pagan idolatry and other religions?  We share a common, almost neutral term, "Elokim," which we all use.  However, like a person returning to his home on a stormy day, we must be careful not to track in the philosophical mud we have contended with outside.

 

     Pagan idolatry recognized the forces of nature and enslaved itself to them.  Much of pagan mythology is merely the anthropomorphism of natural events, such as climatic phenomena.  The death of Tamuz or of Adonis represent the change of seasons and the withering of plant life.  The same is true of the other forces of nature.  However, it is important to note that this anthropomorphism is retained in abstract Greek philosophy.  In Aristotelian philosophy, we find an explanation of the migration of the stars, or, more specifically, the constellations in which the stars were located according to their astronomical system.  According to the Greeks, the explanation was that every star has a force, a soul or intellect which propels it.  These are the souls of the separate constellations or intellects of Medieval philosophy.

 

     For Aristotelian philosophy the concept "Elokim" became identical with the concept of "unmoved mover."  Philosophy inherited the pagan perceptions and retained them in the post-pagan cultural world, while giving it a philosophical interpretation.  The common denominator between the philosophical and pagan models is that they both recognized the existence of super-human forces which rule the world.

 

     The philosopher who speaks at the beginning of the Kuzari believes without a doubt in the oneness of God.  This is a legacy from the philosophical-religious synthesis which was created by Alexandrian Jewry.  God is part of the scriptural heritage.  And indeed, without the scriptures, the  philosophical development of the world would have been drastically different.  If we delve into the philosophy of Aristotle, for example, we will notice that despite the special place reserved for the concept of Elokim, his identification of Elokim with the unpropelled propeller actually means that the existence of many gods is possible.  Each god is in charge of one constellation and the star or stars inside it.  These are clearly mythological remnants which have penetrated into the most abstract Greek philosophy.

 

     Rihal relates to this question in the fifth section [5:22, pg 232]:

 

"And what brought the philosophers to the assumption of many gods is the investigation of the movement of the galgalim, which they counted and found to be over forty ... they came to the conclusion that these movements came from free will, and this proves that each of them comes from a soul, and that every soul's origin is in an intellect, and this intellect is an angel, separate from the physical, and these intellects they called gods."

 

     Classic philosophical thought was founded upon the Greek principles of physics and math.  They are characterized by the absolute absence of the principle of inertia.  In this early physics, there is no explanation as to why an object in motion, like a constellation or a star, continues to move.  There was a need to assume a constant reason for the movement.  We explain this continuation through the principle of inertia.  Aristotle did not recognize this principle and therefore assumed the existence of souls which propel the heavenly bodies.  These souls are guided by tendencies which can be termed 'intellectual.'  This is the origin of the system of the souls and the incorporeal intellects.

 

     Rihal's approach, and the Rambam's in his wake, teaches us that philosophy became idolatry.  Rihal felt that all the theories about the angels and the constellations were merely "intricacies which help to sharpen the mind, not to recognize the truth, and the one who is enticed, in the end becomes a heretic" [5:22].  The Rambam also thought that this was the way humanity moved away from belief in one god to idolatry.  It is interesting to note that this was also the position of Aristotle in one of his lost dialogues, a book which was not known in the Middle Ages.  He perceived paganism as the remnants of a philosophy which developed in a previous civilization before it was destroyed.  We can build an opposite model!  It was the pagan heritage which caused Aristotle to formulate laws of movement according to which the planets move because gods move them.  The monotheistic philosophers thought that the movers  were merely angels.

 

     Aristotle's cosmic approach was totally overturned with the advent of new physics, and the discoveries of Galileo and Newton.  Since then, the astronomical system has been perceived not as a system of living bodies, but as a very complex system similar to the inner workings of a complex clock.

 

As Newton explained, this system makes sense only if we assume the existence of a superior watchmaker who wound it up in the first place.

 

     However, Newton's revolution is also outdated.  Relativity and quantum physics inform us that the truth may be much more complicated, and the watch model is not at all satisfactory.  For now it seems possible that human awareness may have an affect on the "winding up" of our world.

 

     Thus we see that the unity of God was a problem in the Aristotelian philosophical system.  Later, at the beginning of the fifteenth century, Rabbi Chasdai Crescas expressed his vehement opinion that there is absolutely no philosophical possibility of proving divine unity.  He strengthened the  approach of Rihal as it is expressed here.  The concept of divine unity thus becomes the result of faith, the very content of the Shema prayer.

 

     As Rihal implies, it would be easy to reach a kind of aristocracy of gods from the philosophical position.  What was missing here was the concept of a highest god, or "god of the gods". The name Elokim allows us to formulate our conflict with paganism.  The nations of the world  use the name "gods" when they speak of the powers that rule the world.  However, their perspective is always specific.  Each god is a partial power, an expression or an explanation of a particular natural phenomenon.  They saw the gods in the phenomena, for they perceived each phenomenon as itself and not as an expression of its source.  We can assume that if the idol worshippers had known about electromagnetic fields, there would have been enough people to worship them.  They certainly would not have felt that what they saw was only part of the whole system, and that God must be searched for outside the system as a source for the entire system.  This is the "God of the gods," the source of all the forces.  The belief in divine unity compels us to look for the source of the entire system.  However, this source lies outside the system, unlike the idol worshippers who believed that one could worship the forces and affect them magically.  In this way, the forces of nature became gods.

 

     If we use language to emphasize the differences between our approach and those we oppose, however, we have before us two semantic possibilities.  The scriptures used both.

 

1.  We use the name Elokim because it is true that there are forces in nature beyond the phenomena.  However, we believe in one God, who is behind and beyond all phenomena.  He is "Elokim," or, if you will, "the God of gods."

2.  We give a new meaning to the collective term "Elokim."  Let me give you an example to explain what I mean.  Reuven and Shimon are arguing about the origin of a certain object.  Reuven claims that a group of people manufactured it.  Shimon knows that this is not true, as a single individual, Yehuda is responsible for the object.  When Yehuda approaches, Shimon says to Reuven, "here comes the group."  The scriptures took a term which was originally collective and transformed it to the representation of unity, a unity which supersedes all the forces in the world.  The word underwent a transformation, which made its use possible by the professors of monotheism, as well

 

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!