Radiating God

Though the prophets, the greatest of whom was Moses, achieved a superior understanding of God, this understanding does not concern God as He is in Himself but His consequences or effects. In the Middle Ages, philosophers like Maimonides claimed that God's consequences or effects emanate from Him. It is as if God were like an eternal and inexhaustible source of light whose energy is so vast that it nourishes and illuminates everything around us. But even the best scientific theories cannot explain how that light is generated. All we know is that the light makes it possible everything we see and do. On the other hand, the light is so brilliant that no person can look at it directly.

Kenneth Seeskin
from Maimonides: A Guide for Today's Perplexed

Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.” And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” -Exodus 33:18-20

I don't believe in philosophy. I believe in ideas that change people.

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman
"Real Ideas"
Chabad.org

Rambam (Moses ben Maimon or Maimonides) was a superb philosopher and theologian and his writings are considered classic among Jewish scholars and lay people to this very day. I recently reviewed Seeskin's book Maimonidies: A Guide for Today's Perplexed (and am posting the link here so you can be a little background about the topic of today's blog) and through Seeskin's book, gained a greater insight into how this amazing Jewish scholar perceived God.

Rambam, a consummate rationalist, did not believe people could experience God in any manner or fashion but rather, thought we could only experience the results or effects of God. This is like saying that a person cannot look at a solar eclipse with the unaided eye but instead, must use a device to see an approximation of the effects. I also previously used the analogy of experiencing a fire by the effects or results, such as ash and smoke, rather than knowing the fire as it truly is.

We see in the above-quote from Exodus 33, that Moses "knew" or "experienced" God as the Divine Presence or the Shekhinah, God's manifestation in our universe, in a manner as close as possible to experiencing God's effects without actually experiencing God (seeing His "face"). But what did God "emanate" or "radiate" that Moses could "see"?

What did Jesus radiate?

I know that making a comparison between Seeskin's description of Rambam's understanding of experiencing the "effects" of God and the life of Jesus may seem like quite a conceptual leap, but stay with me here because I think the connection exists:

And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, but no one could heal her. She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped.

“Who touched me?” Jesus asked.

When they all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you.”

But Jesus said, “Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me.”

Then the woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. In the presence of all the people, she told why she had touched him and how she had been instantly healed. Then he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.” -Luke 8:43-48

Look at one small bit of this narrative recorded in verse 46:

But Jesus said, “Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me.”

We generally think that when Jesus performed a healing or a miracle, there had to be some sort of intent on his part. That is, he had to want to perform a miracle and had to have an intention as to what form the miracle would take. However we see in the case of the "woman with the issue of blood", that Jesus had no intention of healing whatsoever and in fact, didn't even know about the woman until the moment when she touched the hem (tzitzit?) of his garment and "power went out of him" to heal the woman.

Maimonides believes that we can only observe and benefit from the effects of God as they radiate from Him. Here we see an example of a person benefiting from the effects of what "radiates" from Jesus. Neither effect necessarily requires a specific intent of the "radiator" and this brings up an incredibly interesting question.

Do we benefit from the good effects of God upon our lives because God intents good toward us or do we reap these benefits simply because God is good and what He radiates (unintentionally) is good?

If we answer "yes" to the latter, we have to answer an additional question such as we see illustrated in the following:

You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. -Genesis 50:20

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. -Jeremiah 29:11-12

Here we see that not only does God specifically intend to do good but that good will result from our prayers to God for aid and assistance. The Master said the same thing:

“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” -Luke 11:11-13

Maimonides still doesn't have to be wrong here. God can intend to "radiate" what he radiates and direct His actions along intended lines. But how does this explain what we read in Luke 8:43-48? Of course, if you discount that Jesus and God have to be identical in the "mechanics" of how they "work", then you don't have to explain it, but when I was reading Seeskin's description of how Maimonides viewed God, the comparison between God and Jesus seemed a natural one.

There may be one other factor though. Let's go back to Luke 8 for a moment and specifically verse 48:

Then he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.”

Jesus said something like this on more than one occasion. He didn't say I have healed you. He said your faith has healed you, even under circumstances where Jesus was aware of the person's request to be healed and he intended to heal them (in Matthew 12:13, he heals the withered hand of a man who hadn't asked to be healed, but presumably the man wanted his hand healed and, in the larger context of the event, the man knew Jesus was discussing healing on the Shabbat with the Pharisees).

God can do good for us even if we don't ask Him (and even if we are not aware of Him), but we know that He will respond to us (though not always as we imagine) when we ask. Yet perhaps an effect of God is that He radiates His goodness throughout Creation so that we experience His benefits, just as the rain falls on both the righteous and the unrighteous (Matthew 5:45). There's no reason why God can't specifically intend to do good to a person and then that good happens and that God's very existence causes beneficial effects within His creation that we experience. There's also no reason why Jesus, during his time on earth, couldn't have intended to do good to others, but that his very nature, being a Divine representation of God's on earth, couldn't also have affected his environment, even to the point of healing a woman who touched his garment and who had faith that she would be healed.

At the beginning of this blog post, I quoted Rabbi Freeman when he said, I don't believe in philosophy. I believe in ideas that change people. This seems to draw a distinction between thinking and philosophy as represented by Maimonides, and a specific intent or set of ideas that result in a demonstrable change in human beings, but there may be no difference. We tend to get a picture of Maimonides as a cold, unfeeling thinker who spent his life in an ivory tower pondering arcane thoughts about God and the Torah, but he was also a physician who healed people and who advocated for justice, kindness, and mercy. In the case of the Rambam, his thoughts, feelings, and actions were all connected to living out the life God designed him to live. There was intention of both God and Maimonides and there were observable effects of the existence of both.

I do believe, like Maimonides, that we cannot experience or observe the totality of God as He exists objectively in what mystics describe as the Ayn Sof (although some people may have mystically encountered more of God's nature than we can within the limits of Creation), but I do believe that God has an intention for us and that He demonstrates that intention on an ongoing basis in ways we can experience. I also believe that people can benefit from God's existence and intentions, both the righteous and unrighteous, but the righteous in their awareness of God through faith and trust, can struggle to draw nearer to God and to do His will and reap additional blessings. This doesn't mean that we have more money, or trouble-free lives, or are smarter and wiser than other people, but it does mean we can be deliberately aware of God and what He is doing in the world and as a result, we can be a part of what He is doing. We can have faith and learn to trust God as we "see" what He does and more over, we can be a reflection of what He "emanates" in what we say and do and in some small way, we can show the rest of the world our how we experience a real and living God.

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark.

Book Review of "Maimonides: A Guide for Today's Perplexed"

Maimonidies' philosophic reputation rests on his masterpiece, The Guide of the Perplexed, published in Arabic in 1190 and quickly translated into Hebrew. Unfortunately, it is difficult for the average person living in the twentieth century to read The Guide with any degree of comprehension. First, there is the difficulty of its length: three volumes and a total of 178 chapters. The second difficulty is the learning the author presupposes. Maimonides did not intend the book to be read by a general audience. He assumes his readers are familiar with the sacred literature of Judaism, the classics of Greek philosophy, and the later medieval commentaries. The last difficulty is that the book was written during the twelfth century, and since then our view of the world has undergone numerous changes.

from the Introduction to Maimonides: A Guide for Today's Perplexed
by Kenneth Seeskin

Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the midst of the land whither ye go in to possess it. Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that, when they hear all these statues, shall say: "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." -Deuteronomy 4:5-6

The quotes from Seeskin and Deuteronomy provide excellent reasons to read Maimonides: A Guide for Today's Perplexed, for both Jews who want to gain a greater understanding of the Rambam's (Moses ben Maimon or Maimonides) classic insights into the Torah, and Christians who are trying to grasp the significance of Judaism and a deeper meaning of "the Law" beyond a plain reading of the text. Seeskin's book can also be thought of as "an introduction to Maimonides", since we learn a great deal about how this exalted Jewish sage conceived of the Torah, what it told him about God and what it told him about being a Jew.

To say that Rambam was primarily a philosopher and a thinker is almost an understatement. He seems to be an archetypal intellectualist and rationalist of the Jewish world and his perspectives and teachings are as relevant in Judaism today as they were 800 years ago. His intellectual viewpoint, in and of itself, makes him difficult to comprehend, at least for most people, since his unique perspective is grasped only by others operating at his level. For the "average" person, his insights and the degree of detail which he uses to pursue the holy writings could easily seem like "over-analyzing".

In a scant 141 pages, Seeskin manages to tell his audience how Rambam conceived of God, God's unique "radical Oneness", Rambam's views on polytheism and idolatry, the cognitive qualifications necessary for a Prophet, and much more.

I must admit, after reading Seeskin's book, I find myself a little less enamored with Maimonides than I have been previously. The Rambam was obviously a highly intelligent and educated man and his conception of the world around him, his God, and his Jewishness were defined by those qualities. Everything he wrote was filtered through the values of philosophy and an almost extreme rationalism, to the exclusion of all else. Even love of God was considered a rational process in Rambam's view.

This isn't necessarily bad and it provides a good counterbalance to the emotionalism we find in many Christian churches where all you are expected to do is "feel" the Holy Spirit in order to experience God. For Maimonides, to truly grasp a Jew's purpose and meaning in life, you absolutely had to take on the role of scholar and devote significant resources to the deep study of the Torah and the classic Jewish and Greek philosophical literature.

The Rambam, in considering the commandments, believed that it was possible to understand the purpose behind all of them, not only the ones that seemed to make "obvious" sense, but those that seemed obscure, such as the reason one does not consume pork. He didn't accept the simple answer of "because God said so" and made great efforts to comprehend what most of us would consider incomprehensible. Yet he also believed we needed to love God especially when His commandments and requirements went "beyond reason". He was careful though, to say that what seems like it is beyond our reason does not mean God is unreasonable or irrational, and we may be able to understand Him in terms of His effects, given additional time and study.

God is needed only when we go beyond reason, when we are asked to perform or refrain from acts which we would not think of on our own. Only then can we truly claim that our actions are holy.

It is Rambam's highly rational point of view that puts him at odds with Jewish mysticism. Mystics believe it's possible to extend a human being beyond the rational and physical world and to know God in a way that isn't possible within the limits of our normal experience. Maimonides believed that we can only know God through His effects on the world and that there is no way to access Him as He truly is. I suppose a mystic would liken the difference to God as Ayn Sof vs. God as the Shekhinah or Divine Presence, but Rambam would view even the apparent visible and tangible Shekhinah only in terms of how it impacted the physical world, much like a person believing you can only "experience" fire by examining burnt wood and ash rather than the flame itself.

While Maimonidies did not believe that the majority of Torah commandments applied to the peoples of the world, he didn't believe that the wisdom of the Torah was exclusively a Jewish possession. Much to the dismay of his critics (and he had many) he believed that knowledge and philosophy had universal applications, including knowledge of the Torah.

In our day, Maimonides' position is often ignored. We put so much stress on the concept of peoplehood that it is hard not to conclude that ethnic considerations come before philosophic ones. The dangers of making ethnicity paramount are: (1) People will become so enamored of he ceremonies, rituals, and folklore that they will neglect the intellectual growth which is supposed to follow and forget about the idea of monotheism; and (2) In the cases where intellectual growth does follow, it will over look the universality of Judaism and focus on its cultural and religious peculiarities.

Rambam did believe in preserving the Jewish identity and uniqueness and acknowledged that the Torah was the means by which this was and is achieved. However, for him, Jewish identity is understood as participation in a spiritual community. He considered the customs, ritual, and ceremonies..worth preserving because they allow the community to propagate a defensible doctrine. He also believed another set of "rituals, ceremonies, and customs" could be applied to other people groups (i.e. non-Jews), allowing them to "propagate the same doctrine", acknowledge the unique and radical Oneness of God, enact compassion on strangers, widows, and orphans, promote social harmony, and generally espouse the values that have been the hallmark of the Jewish ideal for thousands of years.

This has profound implications for Christianity and other monotheistic religious groups and provides additional motivation for Christians to entertain a study of Maimonides and his works. Through his understanding of the Torah, which he did not consider the exclusive property of the Jewish people, we can understand our God, our purpose, and ourselves. We can also understand what Judaism has to teach us as God's creations since the Torah has been the keeper of God's wisdom, knowledge, and desires for humanity since the days of Moses.

Many peoples will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. -Isaiah 2:3

Listen to me, my people;
hear me, my nation:
Instruction will go out from me;
my justice will become a light to the nations. -Isaiah 51:4

Published well over a decade ago, Kenneth Seeskin's Maimonides: A Guide for Today's Perplexed continues to show us a truly relevant and educational view of not only Maimonides and his Guide, but the significance of the Torah and Judaism, not only to the Jewish people, but to the rest of us.

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark.

Getting in the Wheelbarrow

There are two words often lumped together and commonly perceived as synonymous, when in reality they are not.

The two are Faith and Trust. In Hebrew, emunah and bitachon.

One way of explaining the difference between these words is that the former is the belief that G-d exists. The latter is the knowledge thereof, or, more accurately, the result of that knowledge, in mind, heart, and deed.

Rabbeinu Bechaya (in his book Kad Hakemach) puts it this way: "Anyone who trusts has faith, but not anyone with faith trusts."

-Mendel Kalmenson
"The Real Answer to the Question, Who Moved My Cheese?"
Chabad.org

This could be a useful answer to a lot of people's difficulties in their relationship with God. It could be a useful answer to your relationship difficulties with God. It could be a useful answer to my relationship difficulties with God. We tend to think of having faith in God and trusting God as the same thing, but they're not. Because they're not, we're expecting certain things to happen in our lives that aren't going to happen. It's like being married. If we believe in our spouse but don't trust him or her, what kind of a marriage is that? Is it even a relationship at all?


Here's another example from the same source:

This point can be further illustrated by a parable:

Long before the entertainment industry boomed, tightrope walking was a common form of amusement and recreation.

Once, a world-famous master of the sport visited a particular region. Word spread quickly, and many people turned up for the show. All was quiet as the master nimbly climbed the tree from which he would begin his dangerous trek.

But just before beginning his routine he called out: "Who here believes I can make it across safely?"

The crowd roared their affirmation. Again he asked the question and was greeted by the same response.

He then pulled out a wheelbarrow from between the branches and asked, less boisterously, "Which of you is willing to get inside the wheelbarrow as I cross?"

You could hear a pin drop.

Faith is the roaring response of the crowd; trust is climbing into the wheelbarrow.

It's easy to have faith in God but not to trust Him. It's easy to say "God exists and I believe in Him" as long as we don't have to become personally involved in performing the weightier matters of Torah. We can have an incredible faith that the tightrope walker will make it to the other end of the rope as long as we don't have to climb into his wheelbarrow.

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder.

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. -James 2:14-24

When James (Ya'akov) says "that a person is considered righteous by what they do", he's talking about trust or bitachon. Our problem, is that we "think" about God, and we "feel" all warm and fuzzy about Jesus, but we don't "do" anything about changing our lives to conform to our thinking and feeling. Here's another example:

Maimonides is one in a long line of Jewish commentators who have proposed rationalistic interpretations of Scripture. Thus, words denoting place, sight, hearing, or position (of God) are interpreted as mental properties or dispositions. In our own vocabulary, it could be said that Maimonides has attempted to demythologize biblical narrative.

from Maimonides: A Guide for Today's Perplexed
by Kenneth Seeskin

Maimonides tends to see Biblical interpretation as either literal or allegorical and his strength as a theologian, philosopher, and sage is in his rational approach to the Tanakh (Jewish Bible). However there is a significant gap in his vision. We can also interpret the Bible and God through a mystic and experiential lens. The mystic seeks to encounter God in an extra-natural realm; meeting Him outside the boundaries of our physical universe, but we can also experience God in our day-to-day life by experiencing ourselves. We can "do" God and not just "think" or "feel" God. We can be the answer to prayer. We can have and live out faith and trust.

We can get in the wheelbarrow.

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark.