Q&A: Does the Holy One, Blessed be He, have a body?
Does the Holy One, Blessed be He, have a body?
Question
Maimonides writes in the Guide that the reason he holds that the Holy One, Blessed be He, has no body is because this was proven philosophically, and because it does not contradict any of the fundamentals of the Torah. That is, if it had not been philosophically proven, then it really would have been preferable to say, following the plain meaning of the verses, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does have a body.
The philosophical proof Maimonides brings is this: the sphere revolves constantly, so an infinite force is needed to move it. Every body has only finite force, and therefore a body cannot be what moves it. So what moves it? God, who has no body.
Of course, this proof has been completely refuted scientifically (Newton’s principle of inertia). If so, why today do we not go with the plain meaning of the verses that the Holy One, Blessed be He, has a body?
Answer
If you accept Maimonides’ argument, then that is indeed the conclusion you are led to.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t agree that the plain meaning of the verses is corporealizing. Treating all of this as metaphor is itself the plain meaning. The Holy One, Blessed be He’s “mighty hand” is not a hand, even without Maimonides’ argument. It’s an expression.
Beyond that, even if an argument is needed, it doesn’t have to be his argument. There are other arguments. For example, if He were material and infinite, He would have to be present everywhere in the universe, and we don’t see Him. You can also cite verses like “To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be equal?” and others. Also, according to current physics, matter was created at some stage during creation, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, the Creator, cannot be matter. I’m sure there are other arguments too; I only wrote what came to mind immediately.
I agree that many of the expressions are easy to explain as metaphor, but there are verses that are genuinely problematic for this view: “And they saw the God of Israel, and under His feet was something like a paved work of sapphire stone… and they beheld God.” “He shall behold the form of the Lord.” “And God created man in His image; in the image of God He made him.” These too can be explained away (and Maimonides did so), but it is forced, certainly and absolutely not the plain meaning.
You can indeed bring other arguments, but I don’t think one can argue against the possibility that the Holy One, Blessed be He, has both a body and a separate part distinct from it (like a human being). And in general, why shouldn’t the Holy One, Blessed be He, be able to create a body for Himself?
“Also the Glory of Israel does not lie or change His mind, for He is not a man, that He should change His mind.”
“And Egypt is man, and not God; and their horses are flesh, and not spirit.”
https://www.knowingfaith.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94/%D7%94%D7%92%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C
By the way, Maimonides’ argument was not really refuted scientifically, only its formulation. From the principle of inertia we learn that there is no concrete infinity here (you could expand with relativity and say that the sphere is not revolving at all).
But there are many other characteristics of the Creator and of the creation that continuously flows from Him that really do have to be infinite.
How can one not accept the argument? Surely the plain meaning of the verses points to corporeality. If there is no external reason to rule that out, then why not accept it?