We have already stated, in one of the chapters of this treatise, that
there is a great difference between bringing to view the existence of a
thing and demonstrating its true essence. We can lead others to notice
the existence of an object by pointing to its accidents, actions, or
even most remote relations to other objects: e.g., if you wish to
describe the king of a country to one of his subjects who does not know
him, you can give a description and an account of his existence in many
ways. You will either say to him, the tall man with a fair complexion
and grey hair is the king, thus describing him by his accidents; or you
will say, the king is the person round whom are seen a great multitude
of men on horse and on foot, and soldiers with drawn swords, over whose
head banners are waving, and before whom trumpets are sounded; or it is
the person living in the palace in a particular region of a certain
country; or it is the person who ordered the building of that wall, or
the construction of that bridge; or by some other similar acts and
things relating to him. His existence can be demonstrated in a still
more indirect way, e.g., if you are asked whether this land has a king,
you will undoubtedly answer in the affirmative. “What proof have you?”
“The fact that this banker here, a weak and little person, stands
before this large mass of gold pieces, and that poor man, tall and
strong, who stands before him asking in vain for alms of the weight of
a carob-grain, is rebuked and is compelled to go away by the mere force
of words; for had he not feared the king, he would, without hesitation,
have killed the banker, or pushed him away and taken as much of the
money as he could.” Consequently, this is a proof that this country has
a ruler and his existence is proved by the well-regulated affairs of
the country, on account of which the king is respected and the
punishments decreed by him are feared. In this whole example nothing is
mentioned that indicated his characteristics, and his essential
properties, by virtue of which he is king. The same is the case with
the information concerning the Creator given to the ordinary classes of
men in all prophetical books and in the Law. For it was found necessary
to teach all of them that God exists, and that He is in every respect
the most perfect Being, that is to say, He exists not only in the sense
in which the earth and the heavens exist, but He exists and possesses
life, wisdom, power, activity, and all other properties which our
belief in His existence must include, as will be shown below. That God
exists was therefore shown to ordinary men by means of similes taken
from physical bodies; that He is living, by a simile taken from motion,
because ordinary men consider only the body as fully, truly, and
undoubtedly existing; that which is connected with a body but is itself
not a body, although believed to exist, has a lower degree of existence
on account of its dependence on the body for existence. That, however,
which is neither itself a body, nor a force within a body, is not
existent according to man’s first notions, and is above all excluded
from the range of imagination. In the same manner motion is considered
by the ordinary man as identical with life; what cannot move
voluntarily from place to place has no life, although motion is not
part of the definition of life, but an accident connected with it. The
perception by the senses, especially by hearing and seeing, is best
known to us; we have no idea or notion of any other mode of
communication between the soul of one person and that of another than
by means of speaking, i.e., by the sound produced by lips, tongue, and
the other organs of speech. When, therefore, we are to be informed that
God has a knowledge of things, and that communication is made by Him to
the Prophets who convey it to us, they represent Him to us as seeing
and hearing, i.e., as perceiving and knowing those things which can be
seen and heard. They represent Him to us as speaking, i.e., that
communications from Him reach the Prophets; that is to be understood by
the term “prophecy,” as will be fully explained. God is described as
working, because we do not know any other mode of producing a thing
except by direct touch. He is said to have a soul in the sense that He
is living, because all living beings are generally supposed to have a
soul; although the term soul is, as has been shown, a homonym.
Again, since we perform all these actions only by means of corporeal
organs, we figuratively ascribe to God the organs of locomotion, as
feet, and their soles; organs of hearing, seeing, and smelling, as ear,
eye, and nose; organs and substance of speech, as mouth, tongue, and
sound; organs for the performance of work, as hand, its fingers, its
palm, and the arm. In short, these organs of the body are figuratively
ascribed to God, who is above all imperfection, to express that He
performs certain acts; and these acts are figuratively ascribed to Him
to express that He possesses certain perfections different from those
acts themselves. E.g., we say that He has eyes, ears, hands, a mouth, a
tongue, to express that He sees, hears, acts, and speaks; but seeing
and hearing are attributed to Him to indicate simply that He perceives.
You thus find in Hebrew instances in which the perception of the one
sense is named instead of the other; thus, “See the word of the Lord”
(Jer. ii. 31), in the same meaning as “Hear the word of the Lord,” for
the sense of the phrase is, “Perceive what He says”; similarly the
phrase, “See the smell of my son” (Gen. xxvii. 27) has the same meaning
as “Smell the smell of my son,” for it relates to the perception of the
smell. In the same way are used the words, “And all the people saw the
thunders and the lightnings” (Exod. xx. 15), although the passage also
contains the description of a prophetical vision, as is well known and
understood among our people. Action and speech are likewise
figuratively applied to God, to express that a certain influence has
emanated from Him, as will be explained (chap. lxv. and chap. lxvi.).
The physical organs which are attributed to God in the writings of the
Prophets are either organs of locomotion, indicating life; organs of
sensation, indicating perception; organs of touch, indicating action;
or organs of speech, indicating the divine inspiration of the Prophets,
as will be explained.
The object of all these indications is to establish in our minds the
notion of the existence of a living being, the Maker of everything, who
also possesses a knowledge of the things which He has made. We shall
explain, when we come to speak of the inadmissibility of Divine
attributes, that all these various attributes convey but one notion,
viz., that of the essence of God. The sole object of this chapter is to
explain in what sense physical organs are ascribed to the Most Perfect
Being, namely, that they are mere indications of the actions generally
performed by means of these organs. Such actions being perfections
respecting ourselves, are predicated of God, because we wish to express
that He is most perfect in every respect, as we remarked above in
explaining the Rabbinical phrase, “The language of the Torah is like
the language of man.” Instances of organs of locomotion being applied
to the Creator occur as follows:—“My footstool” (Isa. lxvi. 1); “the
place of the soles of my feet” (Ezek. xliii. 7). For examples of organs
of touch applied to God, comp. “the hand of the Lord” (Exod. ix. 3);
“with the finger of God” (ib. xxxi. 18); “the work of thy fingers” (Ps.
viii. 4), “And thou hast laid thine hand upon me” (ib. cxxxix. 5); “The
arm of the Lord” (Isa. liii. 1); “Thy right hand, O Lord” (Exod. xv.
6). In instances like the following, organs of speech are attributed to
God: “The mouth of the Lord has spoken” (Isa. i. 20); “And He would
open His lips against thee” (Job xi. 5); “The voice of the Lord is
powerful” (Ps. xxix. 4); “And his tongue as a devouring fire” (Isa.
xxx. 27). Organs of sensation are attributed to God in instances like
the following: “His eyes behold, His eyelids try” (Ps. xi. 4); “The
eyes of the Lord which run to and fro” (Zech. iv. 10); “Bow down thine
ear unto me, and hear” (2 Kings xix. 16); “You have kindled a fire in
my nostril” (Jer. xvii. 5). Of the inner parts of the human body only
the heart is figuratively applied to God, because “heart” is a homonym,
and denotes also “intellect”; it is besides the source of animal life.
In phrases like “my bowels are troubled for him” (Jer. xxxi. 20); “The
sounding of thy bowels” (Isa. lxiii. 15), the term “bowels” is used in
the sense of “heart”; for the term “bowels” is used both in a general
and in a specific meaning; it denotes specifically “bowels,” but more
generally it can be used as the name of any inner organ, including
“heart.” The correctness of this argument can be proved by the phrase
“And thy law is within my bowels” (Ps. xl. 9), which is identical with
“And thy law is within my heart.” For that reason the prophet employed
in this verse the phrase “my bowels are troubled” (and “the sounding of
thy bowels”); the verb hamah is in fact used more frequently in
connection with “heart,” than with any other organ; comp. “My heart
maketh a noise (homeh) in me” (Jer. iv. 19). Similarly, the shoulder is
never used as a figure in reference to God, because it is known as a
mere instrument of transport, and also comes into close contact with
the thing which it carries. With far greater reason the organs of
nutrition are never attributed to God; they are at once recognized as
signs of imperfection. In fact all organs, both the external and the
internal, are employed in the various actions of the soul; some, as
e.g., all inner organs, are the means of preserving the individual for
a certain time; others, as the organs of generation, are the means of
preserving the species; others are the means of improving the condition
of man and bringing his actions to perfection, as the hands, the feet,
and the eyes, all of which tend to render motion, action, and
perception more perfect. Animate beings require motion in order to be
able to approach that which is conducive to their welfare, and to move
away from the opposite; they require the senses in order to be able to
discern what is injurious to them and what is beneficial. In addition,
man requires various kinds of handiwork, to prepare his food, clothing,
and dwelling; and he is compelled by his physical constitution to
perform such work, namely, to prepare what is good for him. Some kinds
of work also occur among certain animals, as far as such work is
required by those animals. I do not believe that any man can doubt the
correctness of the assertion that the Creator is not in need of
anything for the continuance of His existence, or for the improvement
of His condition. Therefore, God has no organs, or, what is the same,
He is not corporeal; His actions are accomplished by His Essence, not
by any organ, and as undoubtedly physical forces are connected with the
organs, He does not possess any such forces, that is to say, He has,
besides His Essence, nothing that could be the cause of His action, His
knowledge, or His will, for attributes are nothing but forces under a
different name. It is not my intention to discuss the question in this
chapter. Our Sages laid down a general principle, by which the literal
sense of the physical attributes of God mentioned by the prophets is
rejected; a principle which evidently shows that our Sages were far
from the belief in the corporeality of God, and that they did not think
any person capable of misunderstanding it, or entertaining any doubt
about it. For that reason they employ in the Talmud and the Midrashim
phrases similar to those contained in the prophecies, without any
circumlocution; they knew that there could not be any doubt about their
metaphorical character, or any danger whatever of their being
misunderstood; and that all such expressions would be understood as
figurative [language], employed to communicate to the intellect the
notion of His existence. Now, it was well known that in figurative
language God is compared to a king who commands, cautions, punishes,
and rewards, his subjects, and whose servants and attendants publish
his orders, so that they might be acted upon, and they also execute
whatever he wishes. Thus the Sages adopted that figure, used it
frequently, and introduced such speech, consent, and refusal of a king,
and other usual acts of kings, as became necessary by that figure. In
all these instances they were sure that no doubt or confusion would
arise from it. The general principle alluded to above is contained in
the following saying of our Sages, mentioned in Bereshith Rabba (c.
xxvii.), “Great was the power of the Prophets; they compared the
creature to its Creator; comp. ‘And over the resemblance of the throne
was a resemblance like the appearance of man’” (Ezek. i. 26). They have
thus plainly stated that all those images which the Prophets perceived,
i.e. in prophetic visions, are images created by God. This is perfectly
correct; for every image in our imagination has been created. How
pregnant is the expression, “Great is their boldness!” They indicated
by it, that they themselves found it very remarkable; for whenever they
perceived a word or act difficult to explain, or apparently
objectionable, they used that phrase; e.g., a certain Rabbi has
performed the act (of “ḥaliẓah”) with a slipper, alone and by night.
Another Rabbi, thereupon exclaimed “How great is his boldness to have
followed the opinion of the minority.” The Chaldee phrase rab gubreh in
the original of the latter quotation, and the Hebrew gadol koḥo in that
of the former quotation, have the same meaning, viz., Great is the
power of (or the boldness of). Hence, in the preceding quotation, the
sense is, How remarkable is the language which the Prophets were
obliged to use when they speak of God the Creator in terms signifying
properties of beings created by Him. This deserves attention. Our Sages
have thus stated in distinct and plain terms that they are far from
believing in the corporeality of God; and in the figures and forms seen
in a prophetical vision, though belonging to created beings, the
Prophets, to use the words of our Sages, “compared the creature to its
Creator.” If, however, after these explanations, any one wishes out of
malice to cavil at them, and to find fault with them, though their
method is neither comprehended nor understood by him, the Sages o.b.m.
will sustain no injury by it.