Book Review: The Limits of Orthodox Theology, Chapter Eight, The Eternality of the Torah

"The Ninth Principle teaches that the Torah will never be abrogated, in whole or part, and that God will never give another Torah. Maimonides repeats his insistence that the biblical mitsvot and the Oral Law will never be abrogated, not even in messianic days, in a few other places. While this is certainly a popular position among rabbinic authorities, and has a talmudic source, it is hardly unanimously accepted."

In the previous post, I had mentioned that there were two chapters worth their weight in gold. This is second of those two chapters, which happen to follow in succession.

The importance of this chapter has to do with two reasons. First, this is an ongoing issues between Judaism and followers of Jesus. Secondly, with the Messianic community Torah observance has become a point of contention. Although I'm not sure that people divide over it. The Limits of Orthodox Theology can shed light on this topic regarding the relationship between the New and Mosaic covenants, although I would suspect Shapiro wasn't intending to do that.

Shapiro begins the chapter by quoting the Talmud (BT Nidah 61b) which states "the mitsvot will be abolished in the Time to Come." After this Shapiro keeps the references coming. What was interesting was how many of the quotes seem similar to traditional Christian arguments.

Several Jewish sources find support in Psalm 146:4, "the Lord looseth the bound." Midrash tehilim (146:4) states: "What does the verse mean by the words 'looseth the bound?' Some say that of every animal whose flesh it is forbidden to eat in this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, will declare in the Time to Come that the eating of this flesh is permitted..." Another midrashic passage on this psalm quoted by Albo states that God will permit the forbidden.

Very interestingly, R. Joseph Albo lays out a theoretical position. If a prophet were "to arise whose mission could be be verified in the same public and miraculous way in which Moses' mission was verified, it would be possible for the commandments of the Torah to be abolished." Albo believes that there is nothing to prevent God from doing this, not that this is necessary.

This possibility is likewise believed by R. Moses Sofer, R. Tobias ben Moses Cohn, R. Jacob Emden, and R. Abraham Hayim Viterbo. Viterbo describes many examples of things in the Torah which were permitted and then forbidden in order to show that Torah can be changed. Examples include the consumption of the sinew of the sciatic nerve, sacrifices outside the land of Israel, and Jacob being able to marry two sisters. Viterbo viewed Maimonides' position as presumptuous since it told God how He should conduct Himself.

Shapiro notes Devarim rabah 4: 6,9 which relates the Torah changing after it has already been given, the example of Leviticus 17's provision about eating meat is revoked in Deuteronomy 12:15-16. The midrash did not state that the prohibition was only to be temporary. Instead, it references the aforementioned verse in Psalm 146.

R. Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye, in a position very similar to Reformed theologians, said that in the future the mitsvot will no longer have a physical component but only a spiritual one. The spiritual aspects of mitsvot remain eternal. Reformed theology speaks about a division between the moral, civil and ceremonial aspects of the law, and Polonnove's position seems similar to saying the moral aspects of the law remain.

There was then discussion of changes to the sacrificial system. Some viewed changes along the lines of Ezekiel's vision of a restored Temple, some thought all or some types of sacrifices would be annulled, and there is the interesting view of R. Abraham Isaac Kook who believed that there will be only be vegetable sacrifices in the messianic era. And R. Hayim Hischensohn argued that the sacrificial system in messianic times will be different in ways we cannot currently comprehend.

Perhaps the most historical insightful insight comes from Bezeal Naor. Shapiro relates:

From what we have seen so far, it is obvious that there is a significant rabbinic position which declares that the commandments will be abolished in messianic days. In fact, Bezalel Naor has speculated that perhaps it was this knowledge -- that Maimonides' Principle was subject to such dispute -- that prevented many great Torah scholars from reacting more strongly to the false messiah Shabetai Tsevi's violations of halakhah. Since they knew that many authorities believed that Jewish law would change in the messianic era, as long as it had not been established that Shabetai Tsevi was not the messiah, his violations of Jewish ritual were not a sufficient reason to condemn him. (bold mine)

There is a passage in this chapter which is pertinent to the issue, which I feel Shapiro needs to elaborate more on. He writes:

[T]he Torah is explicit that his descendants will have an 'everlasting priesthood' (kehunat olam; Num. 25:13). Presumably, Luria and Halberstam understood 'everlasting' to mean until messianic times, when a new spiritual era.

If you've dealt with those who believe that hell is not eternal, you may know that the word translated eternal is the Hebrew word 'olam. That word means age-long. If the age is forever, "eternal" is a good fit. But if the age has a termination point, "age-long" or something similar is a better fit. (This is a good example of how we are benefited from having multiple apologetic disciplines.)

So what can we make of all this?

For one, we hopefully can get a fresh look at the biblical data. Some in the Torah-observant Messianic community have claimed that those who believe in the fulfillment of Torah in the death and Resurrection of Jesus are operating under a cessasionist filter. The numerous Orthodox sources that look to possible changes in messianic times raise serious doubts about that.

Furthermore, we have to say that books in the New Testament which seem to support the fulfillment of the Torah in the Messiah (Hebrews, Galatians) need less explanation. The Torah-observant community needs to explain those texts (which they do). But the traditional understanding of those texts, as this chapter shows, fits nicely within a good segment of past Orthodox theology.

Note: I'm starting to link to Amazon with their Affiliate Program. So feel free to obtain the book here.

Book Review: the Limits of Orthodox Theology, Chapter Seven, Revelation of the Torah

"The Eighth Principle teaches that the Torah was divinely revealed and that the Torah in our hands is exactly the same as the Torah that Moses presented to the Children of Israel. In addition, there is no difference in holiness between any parts of the the Pentateuch. The Principle also declares that the Oral Law is likewise of divine origin."

In my previous ignorance, I was unaware that Orthodox Jews held to this position. That was until I ran into this article on aish.com. There, it is claimed that there are only 9 spelling variants in all of the Torah manuscripts.

There are two chapters in the Limits of Orthodox Theology which are worth their weight in gold. This is one of them.

This principle can not only be shown to have differing views within historic Orthodoxy, it can conclusively be shown to be false.

Furthermore, Shapiro makes the case that Maimonides lied regarding this Principle.

Now, I for one, am not going to argue against divine inspiration for the text of the Torah. Even with its textual variants, Jesus was willing to affirm that. Many hold the belief that if there are any textual variants a text cannot be inspired. Bart Ehrman has popularized this view, but it is also held by Muslims and many King James Only advocates.

Back to the book. Keeping in mind that there has never been a dispute about the divine inspiration of the Written and Oral Laws (although I would definitely argue from a Christian perspective against inspiration of the Oral Law), Shapiro quotes J. David Bleich as saying "this principle is, in effect, an affirmation of the authenticity of the Masoretic text." Shapiro states that this goes beyond that and the text "establed by Aaron ben Moses ben Ahser is (tenth century) is, in its entirety, of Mosaic authorship." Therefore, there is no such thing as a history of the text of the Torah and one expresses doubt in that is a heretic with no share in the world to come.

This principle relies on an absolutely uniform text and that reading had to have been the one revealed to Moses. And as we previously mentioned, this Principle is taken to affirm the Masoretic text. But there is no such thing as the Masoretic text. There are a set of texts established by many Masoretic scholars.

Shapiro writes that when we speak of the Masoretic text we are referring to an edition of the Bible edited by Jacob ben Hayim (before he became a Messianic Jew) and the work of a few others.

Here is one of the more interesting quotes "As early as talmudic times, it was understood that the Babylonian rabbis were no longer aware of the proper defective and plene spellings." I'm not nearly an expert on this material like Shapiro (hence, I'm reading his book), this seems like this would invalidate the claims regarding Oral Law being preserved. Regardless, this goes to the heart of this Principle's claim, since Masoretic texts have a good deal of variety in regards to defective and plene spellings.

"Similarly, it was recognized long ago that a number of quotations from the biblical text, including the Pentateuch, found in the Talmud and Midrashim differ from the accepted (Masoretic) text."

This is simply fascinating to me. As one who embraces the work of textual criticism, it is great that quotes in the Talmud and Midrashim can shed light about variations within the Torah text. However, for people who hold to the Eighth Principle, evidence of variations is evidence on invalidity of this principle. Given their authority within Jewish traditions, the Talmud and Midrashim are sources of a different quality vis a vis this issue. Shapiro notes that the differences in the Talmud and Midrashim go beyond spellings and go to actual words. "There are numerous examples of this and one of them is even found in the Ten Commandments".

R. Samuel David Luzzatto doubts there were diffences in medieval scrolls but admits that variations occurred prior to that time period. "Scholars have also called attention to textual variations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Peshitta, and Targumim." In other words, all non-Masoretic sources.

At this point, I feel like I would be piling on, but I think I have an idea of an Orthodox response. All those different sources were in error. Now, the work of textual criticism is to sort out all those sources. But if the only way to hold, based on the evidence, the Eighth Principle is to assume it in the first place, the Eighth Principle has major problems.

Shapiro notes that the text "of Exodus and Numbers preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls" were paralleled in the Samaritan version. This shows that there were two editions (textual traditions?) in Second Temple times.

If you place authority solely in Ben Asher's Masoretic text, you make the sages of the Talmud, Midrash, and the Babylonian Masoretes heretics. Shaprio states that it is impossible to speak about the Torah "found in our hands today".

Shapiro continues. "[I]t should not be surprising that R. Jacob Kamenetzky (1891-1986) argued that perhaps Maimonides' text of the Pentateuch differed from the one in use today." We see that Maimonides' text was the Yemenite text, which differs from the Masoretic texts. In other words, if we take the Eighth Principle to refer to the Masoretic text, Maimonides is a heretic. But, as we previously mentioned, if it is not the Masoretic text, we have a lot of other prominent heretics. It's a big mess.

It gets worse for this Principle.

"Rabbinic sources speak of tikunei soferim, that is textual changes introduces by the Scribes, some of which concern the Torah." Scribes changed texts they considered offensive to God or grossly anthropomorphic. A famous example is Genesis 18:22, which was changed to say "Abraham stood before the Lord" instead of "God stood yet before Abraham."

Moving on, Shapiro also takes aim at the part of the Eighth Principle, which claims that the whole Torah was received by Moses. That view has not been unamimously accepted. For instance, there is a Talmudic passage (BT Makot 11a) which claims the last eight verses of the Torah which deal with the death of Moses were written by Joshua. This view has support in other Orthodox sources, such as Ibn Ezra.

There are also certain phrases in the Torah which have caused Jewish sources to believe in non-Mosaic authorship for some portions of the Torah. For example, using the phrase "beyond the Jordan" in the Torah, when that phrase refers to a post-exile point of view, shows a post-Mosaic authorship.

Was Maimonides lying?

Shapiro goes on to argue that, given a Talmudic opinion about Joshua writing the last part of the Torah, "for Maimonides to declare a talmudic opinion heretical is extremely unlikely." Regarding textual variations Shapiro writes "taking into account all the pre-Maimonidean sources cites in this chapter, and in particular, the discussion regarding the text of the Pentateuch, it is impossible to believe that Maimonides should be taken at his word."

So, yes. Maimonides is lying.

Shapiro relates the view of Arthur Hyman. Maimonides knew there were elements in this Principle which weren't true. But the truth of the matter would raise doubts among the masses. And Jews were interacting with Muslims who believed that the Jews purposely corrupted their texts in order to remove references to Muhammad.

As can be seen from the case of Bart Ehrman (whose Christian faith was thrown in disarray once he learned about textual variants), withholding this information can backfire. It seems that such an attitude about this book is developing as well:

What I find most interesting in the Orthodox discussions of Dr. Marc B. Shapiro’s book is the widespread belief that readership of the book should be restricted. Not because there are significant mistakes in the book, but because the book will shake people’s faith and lead them off the derech.

So how to make sense of textual variants? I would simply say "don't panic." Jesus affirmed the authority, divine inspiration, and Mosaic authorship of the Torah, even though there were textual variants. If we feel the need to reject the inspiration of the Bible due to textual variants, we are using a different standard.

A quote I used earlier in this post from the Limits of Orthodox Theology used an appropriate phrase. "Exodus and Numbers preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls..." The different manuscript traditions preserve the text of the books of the Bible. Between the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Targums, the Samaritan Torah, and the Masoretic texts, the Torah has been preserved.

Let me use a thought experiment I'm going to blatantly steal from Dr. James White.

Unless God were to strike scribes dead when they make an error, there will be textual variants. Now, to eliminate this, we would have to have one controlling scribal authority. And if we had that, the claim would most likely be that the one controlling authority manipulated the text towards their own ends (think Da Vinci Code). And that claim would be much more plausible under such a scenario.

So, how can we claim to have and know the Word of God given the reality of textual variants? I posed that question to Timothy Paul Jones here.

I'll end on his response:

You're correct about the epistemological framework---and you're working toward the real crux of the issue.

First off, I think it's important to note that the internal reliability of the text (which I deal with in the first half of Misquoting Truth) is a completely different issue from the external validity of the claims (which I deal with in the second half of Misquoting Truth). In other words, simply because the original text is recoverable doesn't mean that the claims of the text are true. Likewise, even supposing that the original text isn't recoverable, the claims of the text might still be true. I'm not claiming that you (or Ehrman, for that matter) is confusing these two, but it's important to note the distinction. I say this primarily because I was once on a radio program in which the Christian host said---in essence---"We have more than 5,000 copies of the New Testament, and they agree more than 99% of the time, therefore they must be true." This is, of course, a false line of reasoning.

I can't build a complete framework here, but here's a starter: What we mean when we refer to Scripture as "God's Word" is that we possess an unerring record of God's self-revelatory dealings with humanity, supremely of God's consummate dealing with humanity in Jesus Christ. This "Word" was inspired in human minds and written down. These human authors wrote in their own words---using descriptive language and rhetorical features from their culture---their words were kept from historical or factual error. (Of course, "historical or factual error" does not include having made estimates, having used language of appearances, having adapted or combined historical accounts, or having worded these accounts in ways that allowed the meaning of an event to be more readily applied to the original hearers' historical circumstances.) Although these words were not copied perfectly through the centuries, their words were copied with sufficient accuracy that it is possible to know and to experience the original "Word" which bears unerring witness to the Word of God who is Jesus Christ.

Book Review: the Limits of Orthodox Theology, Chapter Six, Prophecy and the Uniqueness of Moses

"These Principles teach the existence of prophecy, and that Moses was the greatest prophet who ever lived. He prophesied with intellect alone, without the imaginative faculty playing any role. In addition to listing four ways in which Moses' prophecy differed from that of all other prophets, the Seventh Principle also includes the belief that no prophet as great as Moses will ever arise again."

There are debates about the nature of prophecy, but not Orthodox thinker denies prophecy outright. The crux of this chapter revolves around whether there will be or was a prophet greater than Moses.

Those who agree with the Seventh Principle, see this based on Deuteronomy 34:10 which states "there has no arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, who the Lord knew face to face." Shapiro writes that the notion of Moses' unsurpassed greatness of his prophecies is widely assumed in talmudic and midrashic literature.

Of notable exception, Bamidbar rabah 14:34 teaches that Balaam was the equal of Moses as a prophet. At the same time it upholds Deut. 34:10 by focusing in on how Balaam was not "in Israel" but of the nations. The midrash focuses in on three ways Balaam surpassed Moses, including Balaam being able to speak to God whenever he wished.

Shapiro writes, "the issue becomes more complicated in relation to the messiah." He notes that the aforementioned Bible verse speaks of the past and not about a future prophet.

In regards to the Messiah, Nahmanides and Gersonides disagree with the Seventh Principle and R. Hayim ben Attar leaves open the possibility that the Messiah may surpass Moses.

Gersonides focues on the phrase "in Israel" in Deuteronomy and concludes that a prophet will arise to prophesy for both Israel and the nations.

Lastly, Shapiro notes some in the kabbalistic tradition who believe Moses' understanding was inferior to some kabbalists, but that doesn't apply to prophesy per se.

Book Review: The Limits of Orthodox Theology, Chapter Five, Only God is to be Worshipped

"The Fifth Principle teaches that only God is to be worshipped. Stars, spheres, angels, and elements and their compounds have no free will, and as such must not be used as intermediaries to reach God."

The majority of the chapter centers around numerous references to praying to angels and asking them to intercess on our behalf. This type of intercession can even be found in the Talmud (BT Berakhot 60b, BT Sanhedrin 44b). More interesting is the fact that Maimonides himself contradicts the Fifth Principle in the Mishneh Torah (quoting BT Ber. 60b in 'Hilkhot tefilah' 7:5).

But there is one paragraph in this chapter which by itself makes this chapter valuable. One rabbi, Rabbi Nissim Gerondi of the fourteenth century, saw something in Scripture which violates (or seems to violate) the principle that only God is to be worshipped.

[Gerondi] puts forth the strange and original position that there is one particular angel before whom prostration is permitted. R. Nissim makes this claim in the course of explaining how it was that Joshua prostrated himself before an angel (Josh. 5:14), an act which should be forbidden, just as it is forbidden to sacrifice an animal, burn incense, or put a libation to an angel. (Prostration, sacrifice, incense-burning, and libation are the four forms of worship singled out by the Talmud as always being forbidden, even if this is not how the deity in question is usually worshipped.) R. Nissim does not suggest that prostration to an angel performed as an act of honor is permitted, just as it is with humans. This is probably because the Talmud (BT San. 61b) specifically exempts prostration to humans from the prohibition if it is not done as an act of worship. The implication is that prostration is by definition to be regarded as a form of worship with regard to angels. According to R. Nissim, however, there is one angel who is special in this regard, and before whom one can prostrate oneself. This is the angel spoken of in Exodus 23:20-2, concerning whom God says 'My name is in him.' It is because this angel in osme way share an aspect of God's divinity that it is treated differently from the other angels. As R. Nissim put it, 'Prostrating before him is as if one is prostrating before God.'

What Rabbi Nissim was in Scripture was an angel who shared aspects of God's divinity. God Himself says that God's name was within this angel.

As I've discussed previously, that angel can be explained by Christian beliefs. We have evidence of the Trinity.

How can an angel be divine and identified apart from God at the same time? In the same way as John 1:1 does regarding Jesus. Y'shua is both God and distinct from God the Father.

Traditional Jewish theology cannot handle these Scripture verses. If you want to keep the Fifth Principle, you need to let go of the Second Principle. And vice-versa.

Given the passages in the Tanakh which deal with this angel, it is surprising only one rabbi (that Shapiro knows of) caught the tension between Jewish theology and those texts.

Book Interview: Christ in the Feast of Pentecost

Rich Robinson, co-author of Christ in the Feast of Pentecost, graciously took some interview questions. He just emailed them back to me. Considering today is Shavuot/Pentecost, let's post it.

Enjoy!

1) What is the feast of Pentecost and what should we know about it?
3) How is Christ in the Feast of Pentecost?
4) How does Pentecost relate to the historical event in the early church that most Christians are familiar with? How does knowing about the biblical festival increase our understanding of the 1st century event?

Rich Robinson:Pentecost means "fiftieth" and refers to the holiday that goes by the name Shavuot in Judaism. Shavuot means "weeks" and falls 50 days after Passover or about seven weeks later. What Christians should understand about Pentecost is that when we read the account in Acts chapter 2, we are really reading about a Jewish holiday. By the time of Jesus and the apostles, the day had become the celebration of the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, complete with fire and thunder. Essentially, what we have in Acts 2 is another giving of God's word, with similar sounds and tongues of fire. It was another Mount Sinai experience. There also was a legend among the Jewish people that God had spoken his Law to all the nations of the world, each in their own language, before offering it to Israel, so on the day of Pentecost in Acts, God's word through the apostles is heard by many nations, each in their own language.


2) What are the differences and similarities in how it is celebrated today as compared with Jesus' time or earlier?

Rich Robinson: From the days of Moses to the time of Jesus, Shavuot was an agricultural holiday of first fruits. God gave the land, he blessed the crops, and so you brought the first of the produce to Him. By also before the days of Jesus, there developed the association that God had given the Law on Shavuot. When the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., it ceased being an agricultural holiday and became a historical one entirely, commemorating Mt. Sinai.

Lots of traditions have accumulated over the years, and chief among them are eating dairy foods on Shavuot, decorating the synagogue with greenery, and if you're religious, you'll stay up all night studying the Torah.



5) Is there any future fulfillment of the Feast of Pentecost?

Rich Robinson: The first fulfillments had to do with firstfruits. Just as the first of crops were brought, the New Testament also tells us that Jesus was the firstfruits of those who will rise from the dead. Paul also uses the firstfruits idea to refer to the first people in any area who came to faith in Jesus.

The firstfruits of a crop were essentially a guarantee or promise that the rest of the crop would follow. Jesus' resurrection guarantees our own, and the first to come to faith in an area suggests more will follow. And in Romans, Paul remarks that we have the "firstfruits of the Spirit."

The ultimate fulfillment will be our resurrection when we receive the fulness of what God has for us. Till then, our Christian experience is only a "firstfruits."



6) Is there anything else you we should know about your book?

Rich Robinson: I think it's a book worth having, but as the co-author I am hopelessly biased!

Book Review: The Limits of Orthodox Theology, Chapter Four, Creation Ex Nihilo

"The Fourth Principle affirms God's priority to other being (not his eternity, as has often been assumed), and creation ex nihilo, i.e. creation after absolute non-existence."

This is one of the shorter of the chapters in this book and will probably be the shortest review in this book. In other words, I don't feel I'd be cheating you for giving a quick summary.

No major figure denies God's priority to other beings. But there are examples of Jewish authorities denying creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). Most followed a Platonic conception that matter was eternal.

This can be best summed up by the following quote:

[Gersonides] is quite adamant that creation of matter out of nothing is impossible, and this is the basic stumbling-block for creation ex nihilo as far as he is concerned. That even God cannot do this does not limit him in Gersonides' eyes, for, as we have already seen, inability to do the impossible imples no imperfection.

So, in this principle, we do see the rather uninteresting qualification from the Second Principle (God not being able to do the impossible/meaningless) come into play for those who denied

All disagreements with this principle seem to be due to philosophical considerations.

Book Review: The Limits of Orthodox Theology, Chapter Three, The Incorporality of God

"The Third Principle teaches God's incorporeality - that God is without image and form. According to Maimonides, this Principle includes the assertion that God cannot be described as being in movement or at rest, for this would mean that he has form and physical dimensions. Although, as we shall see, the Bible and Talmud speak of a corporeal God, Maimonides' philosophical outlook forced him to insist on divine incorporeality."

To me at least, this chapter came as one of the bigger surprises. Dr. Shapiro compiles numerous citations showing mainstream Jewish belief in a corporeal God.

Those who held this view had ample Biblical support for their view. Besides anthropomorphisms, being created "in the image of God" seems to be on As a believer in Jesus, it is nice we can quote Jesus as saying "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) or Paul who described God as invisible.

Evidence for the corporeal belief comes from some outside sources, including Justin Martyr. But there is also evidence for incorporeal belief from rabbinic times. Hecateus of Abdera (4th century BCE), Strabo (1st century), Livy (1st century), and Tacitus report on Jewish beliefs about God's incorporeality.

Shaprio also discusses varying opinions from Jewish authorities (ones who did believe in incorporeality) whether those who deviated from this principle should be considered heretics. If the Torah lends credence to this belief, why should it be held against people if they believe falsely based on the Torah? This is another example of Maimonides giving precedence to philosophy over Scripture, although as believers in Jesus we believe Maimonides is correct on this point.

However, there is a way that Christian beliefs help clear up the tension in the Biblical data. John states that no one has seen God but that Jesus makes him known (John 1:18) and Paul declares that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). This can helps us realize how God can remain unseen while manifesting Himself in ways some have seen.

Isaiah was criticized by Albo as Shapiro relates:

I have already quoted Isaiah 6:5, where we read that Isaiah saw God and feared that it would be his undoing. Instead of trying to explain Isaiah's vision -- 'I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up' -- in a philosophical manner, Albo claims that Isaiah, through his power of imagination.' Albo explains, 'The meaning is, I am affected by the power of imagination and my prophetic inspiration is not through a luminous glass like that of Moses, who heard a voice speaking to him without seeing any image before his eyes.' According to the Talmud, this utterance of Isaiah, which contradicted Moses' statement: 'For men shall not see Me and live' (Exod 33:20), was one of the reasons Manasseh slew him.

While we may not be exactly sure what Isaiah saw (the prophet may indeed be using figurative language), the New Testament helps us figure out the problem the Talmud wrestled with. A Trinitarian understanding shows us that God the Son reveals God the Father, who Paul describes as invisible and living in unapproachable light.

One of the more troubling aspects of Maimonides beliefs was that he believed all anthropmorphic descriptions of God must be understood figuratively. While we would agree that there is plenty of Biblical language which uses anthropomorphisms, not all texts can be explained away in this manner.

"...a corporeal God is a contradiction in terms, as it is impossible for a corporeal God to have the defining characteristics set down in the First and Second Principles. As note above, Maimonides also states that God, omnipotent though he is, is unable to assume corporeal form. In fact, Maimonides goes even further and states that one who believes in God corporeality is worse than some types of idolator."

One of the texts in this section I was very surprised not to see mentioned was Genesis 18. In this text, God appears to Abraham in human form. The text even refers to a location where the meeting occurs. Abraham even gives God food.

Again, the Christian conception helps explain the tensions in the biblical texts Maimonides cannot explain. There is a part of this principle which precludes the Christian conception of the incarnation, where God is still spirit but takes on human form.

We must always test our understandings and beliefs against Scripture. We must check our beliefs against all of Scripture, all of the biblical data.

Book Review: The Limits of Orthodox Theology, Chapter Two,the Existence and Unity of God

"The first principle declares that God exists, that he is perfect in every way, and that he is the cause of the existence of all things."

This is probably the lesast controversial of all the Principles. This principle includes the belief in the eternality of God and His perfection. The only objection to this is how we should understand God's perfection.

Can God do anything? Most Jewish thinkers (and Christian theologians as well) have limited what God can do to the logically possible. In other words, God cannot do what is logically nonsense because such a thing doesn't mean anything. And that doesn't imply an imperfection in God's nature.

However, Shapiro lists some Jewish thinkers who reject this line of thinking. For example, one rabbi said "I believe God can make a rectangular triangle."

Again, for the most part this principle is not controversial. Nor is it unique to Judaism, as this Principle could be affirmed by Islam or Christianity.

"The Second Principle teaches the absolute unity of God, which is unlike the unity of anything else. No Jewish teacher has openly disputed this."

Now, the second principle is Unitarianism. And since Christianity is Trinitarian, this is usually one of the major theological objections to Christianity.

The only forces that run counter to this principle are kabbalistic, but no kabbalist would say this violates the unity of God. Similarly, Christians affirm monotheism while embracing Trinitarianism.

The kabbalah has a doctrine of the Sefirot, the ten aspects of the God head. Shapiro mentions a rabbi that "whereas the Chistians believe in 'three', the kabbalists believe in 'ten'.

Now, if memory serves, the Greeks believed in the absolute unity of the One. That kept crossing my mind as I read this.

How can we, as believers in Jesus, criticize the kabbalists for ten instead of three (ignoring for the moment vast differences between Sefirot and Persons in the Trinity)?

Whether the source is Jewish tradition, Greek philosophy, kabbalah or Christian theology, we should always test everything against Scripture. Our forbearers in the Messianic faith did not come up with the doctrine of the Trinity on a whim. It was based on careful reflection on Scripture.

Maimonides' Thirteen Principles, the Apostolic Creed, and the kabbalah are not the ultimate authorities for us. Scripture is. And this book can help remind us of that. We shouldn't be basing our views on God's nature on our own idle speculations. That would be idolatry.

But, as a believer in Jesus, idea of the Sefirot arising within Judaism is quite interesting to me. Although I doubt at this point in time the origin of such ideas could be ascertained.