parashat shmot God's Multiple Embodiments
The Torah portion read in synagogues around the world this week is parashat shmot. parashat shmot runs from Exodus 1:1 to chapter 6:1. parashot shmot contains the story of the burning bush. I want to address the fluidity of God in the Torah, particularly the issue of God’s body. Exodus 3:1-6.
And Moshe was shepherding the flock of Yitro his father-in-law, priest of Midyan. And he drove the flock into the desert and came to the mountain of God at Chorav. And the malakh of HaShem appeared to him in the form of a flame of fire from the midst of the thorn bush. And he saw, and behold the thorn bush was burning in fire, but the thorn bush was not consumed. And Moshe said, ‘I will turn aside and see this great sight, why does the thorn bush not burn?’ And HaShem saw that he turned aside to see, and God called him from the midst of the thorn bush. He said, ‘Moshe, Moshe.’ And he said, ‘Here am I.’ And he said, ‘Do not approach any closer, pull your shoes off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.’ And he said, ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Avraham, the God of Yitzchaq, and the God of Yaaqov.’ And Moshe hid his face, for he feared to stare at God.”
Who exactly did Moshe see at the thorn bush? Verse 2 tells us the malakh of HaShem appeared to him. malakh is conventionally translated angel, but I’m going to argue a little further on that this isn’t the case here. Moshe did not see an angel. Verse 2 informs us the malakh was in the form of a flame. It was a very unusual flame; the flame burned, but it wasn’t fueled by the bush. Flame and bush share the same space, but they don’t interact normally as fire and combustible material. Verse 4 informs us HaShem saw that Moshe had noticed the unusual sight. Verse 4 then specifies that what called Moshe from the midst of the thorn bush was God. Although there’s certainly more to God than the flame Moshe sees, in some respects the flame is God. The small flame is sufficiently God to make the place where Moshe is standing holy ground. So the malakh of HaShem in the form of a flame of fire from the midst of the thorn bush turns out to be God himself, not an ordinary angel such as God might send.
The burning bush is Moshe’s first encounter with God, so he’s afraid to stare. Later on in the Torah Moshe gets used to staring at God. Numbers 12:4-10.
“HaShem suddenly said to Moshe, Aaron, and Miryam, ‘Step out the three of you to the tent of appointment!’ The three of them stepped out. HaShem came down in the pillar of cloud and stood at entrance of the tent. He summoned Aaron and Miryam, and the two of them stepped out. He said, ‘Now hear my words. Should you folks have a prophet, I, HaShem, will make myself known to him in a mirror; in a dream I will speak with him. Not so my servant Moshe. In all my house he’s the most faithful. Mouth-to-mouth I speak to him visibly, not in riddles, and he stares at the form of HaShem. Why do you have no fear to speak against my servant Moshe?’”
The Torah describes Moshe’s direct encounters with God as a repeated occurrence. By the way, the tent of appointment in these passages is not the sanctuary. The tent of appointment in these passages is pitched outside the camp so that when God has need of interaction with his people, he can come down and do so at a safe distance. On the other hand, the sanctuary’s purpose is for God to permanently tabernacle in the midst of his people. Although both are termed the tent of appointment, they are different tents which serve different approaches to human encounter with God. Exodus 33:7-11a.
“And Moshe took the tent and pitched it outside the camp, far from the camp. He called it the tent of appointment. And it would be that everyone inquiring of HaShem would go out to the tent of appointment which was outside the camp. Now when Moshe went out to the tent all the people would stand up and present themselves each at the opening of his tent. They would stare at Moshe until he arrived at the tent. When Moshe arrived at the tent the pillar of cloud descended and stood at the opening of the tent and spoke with Moshe. All the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the opening of the tent. And all the people would stand up and prostrate each at the opening of his tent. HaShem spoke to Moshe face-to-face as a man speaks with his fellow.”
In Numbers 12 Moshe speaks with God mouth-to-mouth; in Exodus 33 he speaks with God face-to-face. Either expression, we’re talking about a pretty direct encounter. But the Torah also attests the contrary approach: nobody can possibly see God. A few verses down, Exodus 33 blatantly contradicts what it has just related about speaking with God face-to-face. Exodus 33:20-23.
“And he said, ‘You are not able to see my face, for man doesn’t see my face and live.’ And HaShem said, ‘Behold, there is a place with me and you can stand on the rock. And it shall be when my body kavod passes by and I will protect you in the cleft of the rock, and I will cover my hand over you until I pass by. And I will remove my hand and you shall see my buttocks, and my face will not be seen.”
This passage is saying, “Everybody’s heard those stories about Moshe seeing God. Well, that’s not quite the way it happened. Moshe didn’t really see God’s face; Moshe only saw God’s behind. Not exactly the same thing.” This is actually the dominant approach in the Torah.
The dominant approach in the Torah is that in any encounter with human beings, God’s actual body is always concealed, usually by a cloud. Human beings can look because God is concealed. They don’t see him. The encounter is auditory rather than visual. In Exodus 19:9, God tells Moshe,
“Behold, I am coming to you in a thick cloud in order that the people may hear my speaking with you.”
Exodus 24:15-18 describes such a typical encounter where God’s body is concealed.
“And Moshe ascended the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain. And HaShem’s body kavod tabernacled on Mt Sinai and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day he called to Moshe from the midst of the cloud. Now the appearance of HaShem’s body kavod was like devouring fire at the summit of the mountain in the eyes of the children of Israel. And Moshe entered the midst of the cloud and ascended the mountain. And Moshe was on the mountain forty days and forty nights.”
The Book of Deuteronomy insists that God concealed himself on Mt Sinai so thoroughly there was nothing to see at all; that the children of Israel only heard his voice. Deuteronomy 4:11-12.
“You approached and you stood beneath the mountain. The mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven with darkness, cloud, and deep darkness. HaShem spoke to you from the midst of the fire. You were hearing a voice of words, but a form you weren’t seeing. Nothing but a voice.”
But on rare occasions in the Torah others beside Moshe also manage to look at God. Exodus 24:9-11.
“And Moshe ascended and Aaron and Nadav and Avihu and seventy elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel. Underneath his feet was as it were a construction bricked with sapphire, like the very heaven for transparency. But on the nobility of the children of Israel he did not lay his hand. They gazed at God and ate and drank.”
Outside the Torah, the prophets unabashedly report seeing God, and they’re not talking about seeing him enveloped within a cloud. Amos 9:1.
“I saw Adonai presenting himself over the altar. He said, ‘Strike the capital that the thresholds shake! Crack them, all of them, on the head! I will kill the last of them with the sword. The escapee will not escape. Their remnant will not remain.’”
The prophet Isaiah reports seeing God. Isaiah 6:1-5.
“In the year King Uziyahu died I saw Adonai sitting on a throne high and lifted up, and the hem of his robe filled the temple. srafim stood above him, each had six wings. With two he covered his face, with two he his feet, and with two he flew. One called to another and said, ‘Holy, holy, holy is HaShem of hosts. The whole earth is full of his glory.’ The posts of the threshholds shook from the voice of the one calling, and the house was filling with smoke. I said, ‘Woe is me, for I am silenced, for I am a man of impure lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of impure lips, for my eyes have seen the King, who is HaShem of hosts.”
Somewhere along the line Isaiah has gotten the mainstream message that human beings can’t see God. He’s plenty scared when he realizes who he’s seen. Interestingly, in this description, even though they’re not human and not sinful, srafim shouldn’t see God either. The sraf makes use of two wings for covering his face. srafim, by the way, are celestial snakes. Archaeologists have discovered depictions of srafim in Jerusalem from the time of Isaiah.
The prophet Ezekiel reports seeing God’s body. Ezekiel 1:26-28.
“And above the firmament over their head, like the sight of sapphire stone, was the semblance of a throne. On the semblance of the throne was the semblance like the sight of a man above it, high above. And I saw as it were shininess like the sight of fire within all around from the sight of his hips and upward. Now from the sight of his hips and downward I saw like the sight of fire and its brightness all around. Like the sight of the bow which is in the cloud on the day of rain, thus was the sight of the brightness all around. This was the sight of the semblance of HaShem’s body kavod. And when I saw it I fell on my face and heard a voice speaking. ”
The prophet Ezekiel sees God’s body stepping out of his temple in Jerusalem and alighting on a pair of cherubs and flying east. Ezekiel 10:18-20.
“Then HaShem’s body kavod exited over the threshold of the temple and stood on the cherubs. The cherubs then lifted their wings and rose from the earth when they exited in front of my eyes. The wheels were opposite them. He stood at the door of the east gate of HaShem’s temple, and the God of Israel’s body kavod was over them above. This was the same living creature which I saw underneath the God of Israel at the Kvar Canal. And I knew that they were the cherubs.”
I should stop and explain here that in the Hebrew Bible God’s kavod is a technical term. In English we conventionally translate kavod by the word “glory.” This convention goes way back to the ancient versions of the Bible. But kavod in the Bible is something more than mere presence or glory. The word kavod derives from the Hebrew root meaning to be heavy; kavod has substance; kavod is not holy smoke, a mist or a cloud. In the biblical descriptions God’s kavod is generally enveloped by a cloud, which demonstrates that God’s kavod is something other than a cloud. There’d be no need to envelop a cloud with another cloud. In the Hebrew Bible God’s kavod is his physical body. God’s physical body needs to be enveloped in order for him to interact with human beings, and even then, he’s dangerous.
The idea that God has a physical body is deeply disturbing to Jews and to Muslims, and to many Christians as well. (Christians, of course, do believe that Jesus has a body.) Jews and Muslims insist that God is invisible because he’s non-material. He doesn’t need to disappear because has nothing to show in the first place. For Jews and Muslims God is purely abstract and completely transcendent: the Creator scrupulously stays outside his creation. But this idea is not biblical; this is the product of philosophical speculation. When Jewish teachers operating within an Islamic environment first introduced Jews to the idea of an invisible, unembodied God, it was revolutionary at the time. Rambam takes up nearly a third of his famous Guide to the Perplexed explaining away all the evidence in the Bible and rabbinic literature that God has a physical body. Although most Jews today believe God has no body, this is not what Jews believed in antiquity.
Why haven’t more readers noticed God’s physical body in the Torah? As I’ve mentioned, even within the Torah itself the idea of God’s body is controversial. In the Book of Deuteronomy for example, God is completely transcendent; God stays up in heaven; only his name dwells here below. This is the dominant view within the Hebrew Bible and most readers have subordinated all evidence to the contrary to the dominant view. Additionally, readers today have been overly influenced by Western culture. But rather than assuming Western culture, the Bible writers assume the culture of their world. In order for us to recover the biblical concept of encounter with God we need to look at the world of the Bible.
If we look at Mesopotamian culture we notice a fundamental difference between gods and humans. By the way, looking at Mesopotamian culture is not looking too far afield. The Torah attests that Israel’s ancestors hailed from Mesopotamia. Israel’s ancestors were intimately familiar with that culture.
In Mesopotamian culture the big difference between gods and human beings is that gods enjoy a fluid identity. In Mesopotamian thinking gods and goddesses can fragment into local manifestations of themselves, who exercise independence, and yet still retain their integrity of selfhood. Humans can do no such thing. In Mesopotamia gods and goddesses have multiple bodies, who reside in multiple locations, all without splitting up into multiple selves. In Mesopotamia archaeologists find gods and goddesses of the same name residing in different locations.
Take, for example, the treaty between King Esarhaddon and King Ramataya of Urakazabanu [ANET 534]. In Mesopotamian treaties the gods and goddesses of both parties were routinely called on as witnesses. The treaty between Esarhaddon and Ramataya calls on multiple manifestations of the goddess Ishtar: Ishtar of Abella, Ishtar of Ninveh, the Planet Venus (which refers to the Heavenly Ishtar), and then Ishtar of Karkemesh. Four separate Ishtars in one list! Another example. The treaty between Ashur-nirari V and Mati’lu of Arpad [ANET 532]. The treaty calls on multiple manifestations of the god Addad as witnesses: Addad, Addad of Kurba-il, then Addad of Aleppo. Three separate Addads in one list!
But at the basic level the four separate Ishatars are the same goddess and the three separate Addads are the same god. Separate gods and goddesses don’t have separate mythologies. We also need to bear in mind that in Mesopotamian culture a name is not merely a symbolic sound for a person, as in Western culture. In Mesopotamian culture a name is the essence of a person, not a mere designation. The fact that all the separate Ishtars are still named Ishtar demonstrates that in Mesopotamian thinking, at least, she remains herself.
We have something very similar going on today. Roman Catholics pray to Our Lady of Guadalupe, to Our Lady of Fatima, to Our Lady of Czestochowa, to Our Lady of Lourdes, and to many other manifestations of the Virgin. But if you ask a Roman Catholic, “Which Mary is the mother of Jesus?” you’ll be told all of them are, because while in one way they’re separate, in another way they’re the same. Ancient Mesopotamian thinking is still with us!
These are the inherited cultural assumptions in ancient Israel which HaShem’s worshipers accepted, rejected, and modified. There were those in ancient Israel who believed HaShem revealed himself in a multiplicity of local manifestations.
Kuntillet Ajrud is the site of a shine patronized by ancient Jewish travelers in the Sinai desert. It was discovered forty years ago. The Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions are in biblical Hebrew. One of the inscriptions reads:
"I have blessed you to HaShem of Shomron and to his ashera."
An ashera, by the way, is a wooden pole representing God’s presence. In the Bible it is usually forbidden. Here the ancient Jewish worshiper imagines that HaShem maintains a local presence. But even more interesting is the name HaShem of Shomron. This sounds a lot like Ishtar of Abella, Ishtar of Ninveh, Ishtar of Karkemesh. This ancient Jewish worshiper is blessing his friends by a local manifestation of HaShem! Another of the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions reads,
"I have blessed you to HaShem of Teman and his ashaera. May he bless you and keep you. May he be with my lord..."
Here the ancient Jewish worshiper imagines another local manifestation of HaShem. In addition to HaShem of Shomron there’s also HaShem of Teman! We have evidence for belief in local manifestations of HaShem in the Bible as well. 2Samuel 15:7.
“Now it transpired at the end of forty years Avshalom said to the king, ‘Please let me go that I may pay my vow which I vowed to HaShem in Chevron.”
David doesn’t counter Avshalom, “Why can’t you fulfill your vow right here? Jerusalem is every bit as good as Chevron. The children of Israel come from all over the country to worship HaShem here in Jerusalem. Why can’t you just join them?”
Some readers have understood that Avshalom wished to pay a vow he’d made when he’d been in Chevron. That’s how they understand “HaShem in Chevron.” But Avshalom couldn’t have been in Chevron when he made his vow. Avshalom had recently returned to Jerusalem from banishment in Gshur (2Samuel 13:37 14:23-24, 32), which is somewhere in the Golan Heights. It can’t possibly have been a matter of a vow in Chevron. Avshalom wasn’t in Chevron. The one in Chevron was HaShem!
It sounds for all the world like Avshalom has made a vow to a local manifestation of HaShem, exactly like HaShem of Shomron and HaShem of Teman in the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions. Evidently, HaShem’s line-up also included HaShem of Chevron. Evidently, there were ancient Jews who believed HaShem is not subject to the spatial limitations of human existence. They seem to have envisioned God in typical Mesopotamian fashion: he maintains multiple bodies in multiple dwelling places without in any way compromising his personal identity. He, after all, is a god, not a human! Like all good Jews they affirmed that HaShem is one, but they thought of his oneness in terms of integrating his transcendence and his immanence. Unlike the Book of Deuteronomy or Islam, they didn’t preserve HaShem’s oneness by restricting him from entering his creation.
We’ve already mentioned HaShem’s ashera in connection with the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions. There’s also biblical evidence that certain of HaShem’s loyal worshipers accepted the legitimacy of this symbolic representation. 2Kings 13:6.
“Only they did not depart from the sins of the dynasty of Yaravam who led Israel to sin, rather he walked in it. Furthermore, the ashera stood in Shomron.”
Yhoachaz son of Yehu (2Kings 13:1) doesn’t remove the ashera in Shomron, the capitol of his kingdom. Now his father, Yehu, was a religious reformer. Elisha the prophet had anointed him for the express purpose of conducting holy war against foreign religion. Yehu was the guy who exterminated the worshipers of Baal in Israel (2Kings 10:18-28). He was the guy who killed Eizevel (2Kings 9:30-37). Yehu was the guy who invited Yhonadav ben Rekhav to ride with him in his chariot to see his zeal for HaShem (2Kings 10:15-16). Yehu tore down the temple of Baal, including the matzevot, which he burned (2Kings 10:26-27). Yet the Bible notes that Yehu and his son Yhoachaz, who reigned after him, did not remove the ashera in Shomron. Evidently, even for an enthusiastic idol-smasher like Yehu, the ashera was the appropriate symbol of HaShem’s abiding presence in Israel. He left it intact.
Again, I want to reference Israel’s neighbors to help us grasp Israel’s understanding of how God reveals himself. Philo of Byblos is a Phoenician writer who packages Canaanite culture for a Greek-speaking audience. Philo of Byblos [Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio Evangelica, book 1 chapter 10] explains that among his people there’s such a thing as baitulos empsychos “an animated stone” which a god or goddess has entered in order to receive worship in a specific location. Even though he’s writing in Greek, Philo of Byblos provides the Phoenician term for “animated stones.” In Phoenician such an animated stone is called a baitulos. The Phoenician language is closely related to Hebrew. baitulos in Phoenician is bet el in Hebrew. This bit of information helps us understand how a bet el can encounter Jacob. Hosea 12:4-6.
“In the womb he grabbed his brother’s heal; in his manhood he grappled with God. He grappled with a malakh and won. He wept and implored him. bet el found him; and spoke there with him. HaShem, God of hosts is his name.”
Readers unfamiliar with the culture of ancient Israel’s neighbors have always had difficulty figuring out what Hosea might have meant by “bet el found him and spoke there with him.” This makes about as much sense as saying Chicago found him and spoke to him. If bet el is understood in terms of a place name, it’s difficult to understand how a place could have found a person. The prophet Hosea however, is using the word bet el in the Phoenician sense. The bet el that found Jacob was a baitulos, a local embodiment of a god or goddess. Hosea says the name of the bet el who found Jacob is HaShem of hosts. Hosea is talking here about an embodiment of HaShem, not the town named Bet El.
In two stories of Jacob’s encounters with God he inaugurates a matzeva. A matzeva is a small stone pillar. In Canaanite culture a matzeva functions as the local embodiment of a god. A matzeva is the same idea as an ashaera or a bet el. Genesis 28:16-22.
“Now Jacob awoke from his sleep and exclaimed, ‘Surely there is HaShem in this place and I didn’t know!’ He was awestruck and exclaimed, ‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God and this is the gate of heaven!’ Jacob got up early in the morning and took the stone which he had put under his head and installed it a matzeva and poured oil on its head. He declared the name of that place Bet El. Luz however, was the previous name of the town. Jacob made a vow, saying, ‘If God will be with me and protect me in this way which I walk, gives me bread to eat and clothes to wear, brings me back in peace to my father’s house, then HaShem will be God to me. And this stone which I have installed a matzeva will be a bet elohim, and everything which you give me I will surely tithe to you.’”
Jacob believes his matzeva will become a housing of God, an embodiment of God, a bet el. In the Torah bet elohim is functionally equivalent to bet el. In English we would translate either expression “house of God.” In fact, in another story of encounter with God, Jacob actually names the spot elohim bet el rather than bet el.
“Jacob erected a matzeva in the place where he had spoken with him, a matzeva of stone. He offered a drink offering on it and poured oil on it. Jacob called the name of the place where he had spoken with him there elohim bet el.” [Genesis 35:14-15]
Yet another passage equates a matzeva with a bet el. Genesis 31:11-13.
“The malakh of God spoke to me in a dream. ‘Jacob!’ I said, ‘Here I am.’ He said, ‘Lift up your eyes and notice! All the rams which mount the flock are streaked, spotted, and speckled. For I have seen everything that Lavan has done to you. I am the El in the bet el which you anointed there, in the matzeva where you took a vow to me. Now get up, leave this land and return to the land of your birth.’”
Here God introduces himself to Jacob as the El in the bet el, as the El in the matzeva. In this passage three terms: the malakh, the bet el, and the matzeva are synonymous. All three are bodily manifestations of God. The story of Jacob’s wrestling, which Hosea refers to, comes in Genesis 32:24-30.
“And Jacob remained alone and somebody wrestled with him until the break of dawn. When he saw that he couldn’t beat him, he touched the palm of his hip and the palm of Jacob’s hip was dislocated as he wrestled with him. He said, ‘Send me, for dawn is breaking.’ He said, ‘I will not send you unless you bless me.’ He asked him, ‘What is your name?’ He said, ‘Jacob.’ He said, ‘Your name will no longer be said Jacob, but Israel, for you have struggled with God and with humans and you have won.’ Jacob asked, saying, ‘Tell me please your name.’ He said, ‘Why do you ask my name?’ But he blessed him there. Jacob called the name of the place Pniel for I have seen God face-to-face and I have been delivered.”
According to the Torah this was another of those rare but survivable face-to-face encounters with God. Jacob says that he has seen God face-to-face and been delivered. The Torah nowhere mentions that it was a malakh who wrestled with Jacob, but Hosea (12:5) specifies that Jacob wrestled with a malakh. Perhaps Hosea derives the malakh from Genesis 31:11. In Hosea’s mind the malakh and the bet el are closely related, if not identical.
To summarize, some in ancient Israel considered a wooden ashera, or a stone matzeva, or a bet el, or a malakh to be an embodiment of God. These were considered his physical body, in which he had taken up temporary residence. These Jews were not polytheists or pagans. They simply thought of God in familiar cultural terms. They were used to the idea that God, because he is God, can fragment into any number of sub-bodies he may require while still retaining the singularity of his selfhood and his unique identity.
Having ploughed through this admittedly obscure material we’re in position to understand why the malakh of HaShem appears to Moshe at the burning bush. Let’s look at yet another passage where God sends a malakh. Exodus 33:2-4.
“Now I shall send a malakh before you and I shall drive out the Knaani, the Amori, the Chiti, the Prizi, the Chivi, and the Yavusi. To the land flowing milk and honey. For I shall not go up among you, for you are a stiff-necked people, otherwise I might devour you on the way. When the people heard this bad news they went into mourning; they didn’t put on, nobody his or her ornaments.”
If God in all his fullness were to accompany the children of Israel he’d devour them on the way. God is going to prevent that. The text says he isn’t going to go up to the Promised Land among his people; he’s sending a malakh. Nevertheless, the action of the malakh is directly ascribed to God. God doesn’t say, “I’ll send a malakh and he’ll drive out the present inhabitants of the Promised Land.” This malakh can’t be an angel in the ordinary sense of a messenger God sends. This malakh isn’t an agent or a substitute. God isn’t sending somebody else to accompany the children of Israel. In the continuation of the text the verb is still first person: “I shall drive out the Knaani, the Amori, the Chiti, the Prizi, the Chivi, and the Yavusi.”
The malakh in Exodus 33 is evidently something like a small-scale manifestation of God. The malakh is God Almighty reduced and attenuated to a level survivable by stiff-necked people. The malakh is God, but only a discrete part of God. God will be sufficiently present to deliver his people from their enemies, but for their own good he will not be present among his people in all his fullness. In one sense he’ll be present, but in another sense he’ll be absent.
Although the ancient understanding of God’s presence in multiple bodies in multiple residences ultimately did not win out in the Bible, it has certain advantages. A God with no body (Islam, medieval and modern Judaism) is limited to remaining outside creation. He is not God with us. A God with only one body (the view in the latter part of the Book of Exodus, in Leviticus and Numbers) is limited to being one place at a time. When he comes down he’s not in heaven anymore. Since he’s now in control of all creation, apparently he’s residing in heaven, therefore not here with us. A God with multiple bodies (ancient Mesopotamia, Canaan, early Israel) is enabled to fully exercise his divine freedom: he is sovereign both inside and outside his creation. He is omnipresent, not by being spirit, but by being embodied in as many bodies as he deems necessary.
This understanding of God in ancient Israel makes the Christian God less foreign. The apprehension of God that lies behind the doctrine of the trinity is not pagan. The Christian understanding of God is not tainted with polytheism. It is deeply rooted in ancient Israel. The Christian experience that God is one unique incomparable self having three identities fits comfortably within the perimeters of the Hebrew Bible. The Christian God operates along the lines of HaShem in ancient Israel: multiple bodies for multiple tasks, but all bodies are one and the same HaShem. Despite the multiplicity of bodies there’s never any question of the existence of more than one HaShem.
This is not to say that the Torah anticipates the Christian God in every regard. That one of HaShem’s bodies should turn out to be a Jew is not anticipated. But it isn’t an impossible stretch for a God who can be embodied in a small flame within a thorn bush or in a matzeva stone or in an ashera stick or in a bet el or in a malakh from heaven or in Abraham and Sara’s three guests, to be embodied in a Jew, should he so choose.
What is remarkable about the Torah is that competing presentations of God are preserved. There were certain parameters which all parties to the discussion respected: There is a God; so no atheists allowed. There is only one God; so no polytheists allowed. But within these parameters the issue of how God interacts with us was never settled. Does he interact with the likes of us by proxy or does he himself get down and dirty with us? How is he present among his other worshipers when he’s here with us? How does he feel what I’m feeling? The Bible offers no single answer to these questions.
Rather than suppressing all but one answer, the final editors of the Torah allowed competing answers to stand. They even risked problems of contradiction. This approach should be exemplary for both Jews and Christians today. We, each in our own way, are the heirs of HaShem’s ancient worshipers in Israel. We would do well to follow the Torah’s lead in this regard: We are certainly entitled to our own understanding of how God interacts with us, this are part and parcel of who we in his presence, but there’s room for competing answers.
This presentation is based on the research of Benjamin Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge, 2009. ISBN 978-0521518727
